JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure-6) passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara-camp-Gangapur in Civil Suit No.97/2007, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Sec. on 2(c) and 12 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land situated in village Kali Mangri Ka kheda was filed by the petitioner. The defendants No. 1 & 2 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. for dismissal of the suit so also filed written statement inter alia taking objection regarding payment of Court fees. The trial Court on the basis of the plaint and written statement, framed in all 9 issues and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, decided legal issues No. 7 & 9 vide order dated 16.01.2010. Issue No.7 reads as under: " rudh la[;k 7% vk;k izfroknh la[;k 2 yxk;r 22 dks vuko';d i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gS] u rks buds fo:) dksbZ fcuk; okn mRiUu gqvk gS u dksbZ nkn gh pkgh xbZ gS ftlls izfroknh la0 2 yxk;r 23 ds fo:) izLrqr ;g okn iz'u n`"V;k gh [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA " Issue No.9 read as under: " rudh la[;k 9% vk;k okn dk ewY;kadu U;k; 'kqYd dh n`f"V ls jktLFkku dksbZ Qhl ,oa lwV osY;w,'ku dh /kkjk 38 ( 1 ) ( , ) ykxw gksrh gS u dh /kkjk 7 ftlls izLrqr ;g okn [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA " 3. The trial Court after hearing arguments and considering various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, decided issues No. 7 & 9 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is seeking relief for cancellation of sale-deed and therefore, as per Section 38 of the Court Fees Act, it is mandatory for him to file Court fees. The trial Court after hearing arguments and considering various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, decided issues No. 7 & 9 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is seeking relief for cancellation of sale-deed and therefore, as per Section 38 of the Court Fees Act, it is mandatory for him to file Court fees. After passing the said order on two issues by the trial Court, an application under Section 2(c) and 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on 19.03.2010, in which, it is prayed that the plaintiff is not having appropriate means and she is poor lady, therefore, exemption may be granted for depositing the Court fees as ordered by the Court while deciding issue No. 9. 4. A reply to the above application was filed by the defendant-respondents, wherein it is stated that the plaintiff is having agriculture land of 20 bigha and she is not eligible to get free legal service. Further it is submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner has not complied with the provision of Order 33 C.P.C., therefore, the application may be dismissed. 5. The trial Court while deciding the above application of the petitioner gave finding that an order is made on 16.01.2010 while deciding issue No.9, in which, it is held that as per Section 38 of Court Fees Act, the Court fee is required to be furnished by the plaintiff-petitioner but that order was not complied with by the plaintiff and an application has been filed for exemption. The trial Court also observed that there is no power left with the Court under the Act of 1987 for granting exemption to file Court fees and as per order dated 16.01.2010; it is mandatory for the plaintiff to deposit the Court fees. With regard to the entitlement for getting free legal service, it is observed that there is procedure laid down in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the civil Court cannot adjudicate the eligibility for granting exemption to furnish Court fees under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Further it is observed that no application was filed before the proper forum by the plaintiff-petitioner to get free legal service and somehow the plaintiff did not choose to comply with the order dated 16.01.2010 and seeking exemption from depositing the Court fees for which this Court is not competent to pass an order. 6. Further it is observed that no application was filed before the proper forum by the plaintiff-petitioner to get free legal service and somehow the plaintiff did not choose to comply with the order dated 16.01.2010 and seeking exemption from depositing the Court fees for which this Court is not competent to pass an order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that on the one hand, the Act was enacted by the Legislature known as Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for granting free legal aid service and on the other hand, the trial Court refused to grant the relief to the petitioner, inspite of the fact that plaintiff-petitioner is poor and there is no means for survival of the plaintiff-petitioner and, therefore, she being a woman, is legally entitled to get exemption from furnishing Court fees and for such relief, the order impugned may be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited by attention towards the judgment of this Court in Bhanwari Devi (Smt.) & Ors. v. Ramlal & Ors, reported in 2003(1) DNJ (Raj.) p.237 ; the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chayamani Tripathy & Anr. v. Dharmananda Panda, reported in AIR 1993 Orissa p.23 and in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors, reported in 2011 CDR 32 (SC) ; and the judgment of this Court (Jaipur Bench) in Mukesh Saini v. Jaigarh Construction Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2003(2) DNJ (Raj.) p.877 and submitted that the exemption was granted in above cases for depositing the Court fees. Therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 8. I have perused the order impugned and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the plaintiff-petitioner is claiming her right to get free legal service under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and in the instant case, after deciding issues No.7 & 9 by the trial Court vide order dated 16.01.2010, an application was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner before the same Court for granting exemption from depositing Court fees. The trial Court observed in the order impugned dated 14.10.2010 that even if any right accrued to the plaintiff under Sections 2(c) and 12 of Leal Services Authorities Act, 1987, she is required to take recourse of the remedy which is available under the said Act for the purpose of getting free legal service. The trial Court observed in the order impugned dated 14.10.2010 that even if any right accrued to the plaintiff under Sections 2(c) and 12 of Leal Services Authorities Act, 1987, she is required to take recourse of the remedy which is available under the said Act for the purpose of getting free legal service. Further it is observed by the trial Court that no such power is left with the trial Court to grant exemption upon application filed under Sections 2(c) and 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bhilwara-camp-Gangapur while passing the order impugned because it is apparent from the facts that the issue of depositing Court fees was decided by the trial Court vide order dated 16.01.2010 and if any right accrued in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner for exemption of Court fees, then, she was to take recourse for the same before the authority provided under the Legal Services Authorities but the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court for granting such exemption. In my considered view, the finding arrived at by the trial Court does not require any interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India because it emerges from the facts that no such plea was taken before the trial Court that the plaintiff is not in a position to deposit the Court fees when issue No.9 was decided in the suit. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is altogether different on the facts of the case. In none of the case, any order was made by the trial Court or by the High Court or by the Supreme Court to grant exemption from furnishing Court fees after adjudication by the trial Court while deciding issue to deposit Court fees in the suit. 9. Consequently, this writ petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner-plaintiff will be at liberty to pursue remedy, if provided, under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.Petition dismissed. *******