ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2.2.11 passed by VI ADJ, (Fast Track), Mandsaur in MJC Case No. 31/09, whereby application filed by the petitioners claiming exemption from payment of court fee was dismissed, present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for damages alleging that Ishwarlal Kumawat husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 was murdered, therefore, petitioners are entitled for compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,60,0001-, for which court fee amounting to Rs. 67,2001- is payable. It was alleged that since petitioner No.1 is widow and the income of the petitioners is below Rs. 6,0001- per year, therefore, petitioners be exempted from payment of court fee. Application was dismissed by the learned Court below, against which present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that there was no justification on the part of learned Court below in allowing the application filed by petitioners, wherein prayer was to exempt the petitioners from payment of court fee. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that upon enquiry by Tehsildar, Mandsaur it was found that petitioner are in occupation of a house and al so movable property valuing Rs. 6,37,5001-, therefore, no illegalilty has been committed by the learned Court below in dismissing the application filed by petitioners. 5. Vide notification No. F.9.1.83-B-XXI dated 104.83 in exercise of powers conferred by section 35 of Courts Fees Act, 1870 State Government remitted the court fees mentioned in articles I-A and 2 of the first scheduled and Articles 5, 17 and 21 of the second schedule to the said Act payable on plaint by the categories of persons mentioned in the said notification where annual income immediately preceding the date of presentation of plaint from all sources does not exceed Rs. 6,000/-. In the category of persons mentioned in the said notification women and minors are covered. Petitioner No.1 is a woman and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are minors. 6,000/-. In the category of persons mentioned in the said notification women and minors are covered. Petitioner No.1 is a woman and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are minors. As per notification the enquiry was required to be made about the income of the petitioners and not of assets. While as per the status report property of the petitioner No.1 is assessed as Rs. 6,36,500/-. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner No. 1 is having property of Rs. 6,36,500/- for which petitioner No.1 was having no opportunity to rebut. Undisputedly, there is no assets of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 and there is no income as they are aged 12 years, 9 years and 4 years respectively. Similarly report submitted by Tehsildar speaks nothing about the income of the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification on the part of learned Court below in dismissing the application filed by petitioners. In view of this, petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court holding that the petitioners are entitled for exemption from payment of court fee under the modification. Learned trial Court is directed to register the case as civil suit and proceed with the case and decide the same as early as possible as petitioners are claiming compensation on account of murder of husband of petitioners No.1 and father of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. Petitioners are directed to remain present before the Court below on 20/7/2011. 6. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.