JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.2.2013 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 51 of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (`the Act') has been dismissed. 2. The respondent filed proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (`the Succession Act') seeking probate of will dated 15.6.2002 said to have been executed by Ganga Dan Charan. The proceedings were whereafter converted into application for grant of letter of administration. 3. The petitioner appeared and sought to contest the proceedings filed by the respondent and whereafter application under Section 51 of the Act was filed inter-alia raising the contention that as the proceedings are contested, the plaintiff is required to pay the court fees in terms of proviso to Article 11(j) of the second schedule of the Act. The application was contested by the respondent. 4. The trial court by its order dated 26.2.2013 while relying on the judgment in Vasudeo v. Lal Singh & Ors. : AIR 1992 Raj. 133 and distinguishing the case of Bhagwandas & Ors. v. Bhagwandas & Anr., AIR 2000 Raj.67 , dismissed the application. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhagwandas has dealt with and has in-fact distinguishing the judgment in the case of Vasudeo (supra) held that in the case of present nature where the proceedings became contentious the court fee payable is under the proviso to Article 11(j) of Second Schedule of the Act and therefore, the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgment in the case of Vasudeo (supra) holds the field and therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record. 8. There is no dispute that the proceedings in the present matter have become contentious and therefore, the applicability of the Article under the Act has to be examined from the said point of view. 9. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record. 8. There is no dispute that the proceedings in the present matter have become contentious and therefore, the applicability of the Article under the Act has to be examined from the said point of view. 9. This Court in the case of Bhagwandas (supra) while elaborately discussing the provisions of law as well as the law laid down in the case of Vasudeo (supra) has categorically held as under:- "18. As already stated the application submitted by the plaintiff for grant of letter of administration before the Court below was ordered to be registered as regular suit. Admittedly, it is contentious case for the grant of letter of administration, therefore, the Court-fee is payable under the proviso to Article 11(j) of Schedule II of the Act of 1961. The learned counsel below has not properly considered the provisions contained in the Act of 1961 and committed jurisdictional error on placing reliance on Vasudeo v. Lal Singh, ( AIR 1992 Raj 133 ) (supra), the ratio of which is not applicable to a contentious case. If the impugned order is allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice." 10. In view of the law laid down by this Court, while considering the judgment in the case of Vasudeo (supra), it cannot be said that the trial court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 11. In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed; the order dated 26.2.2013 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the trial court is directed to proceed in the matter after registering the proceedings as a regular suit and direct plaintiff-Nachiketa Singh to pay ad valorem court fees in terms of the decision in the case of Bhagwandas (supra).Petition allowed. *******