JUDGMENT AND ORDER Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. The petitioner-defendant of the suit has filed the writ petition challenging order dated 28.03.2012 whereby issue No. 6 relating to deficiency in court-fee has been decided and the plaintiff has been directed to deposit remaining court-fee within a period of one month. 2. The petitioner-defendant has pointed out that a look at the pleadings as per para 9 the plaint would show that the plaintiff had deposited the court-fee after assessing value of Rs.4 Lacs in terms of section 28 of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (herein after 'the Act of 1961'). In view of deposit of court-fee on valuation of Rs.4 Lacs, which is only provided in cases where suits are filed under section 6 for possession under Specific Reliefs Act 1963 (herein after 'the Act of 1963'), the suit ought to be treated to have been filed within the meaning of section 6 of the Act of 1963. 3. It has further been submitted that in view of suit having been filed under section 6 of the Act of 1963 where there is a limitation provided of six months from the date of dispossession, the suit itself was time barred. For this purpose, the counsel has taken us to the pleadings in the plaint where it has been specifically mentioned that the plaintiff was dispossessed on 13.01.2005 whereas the suit was filed on 02.01.2006 and was, thus, barred under the Act of 1963. In the circumstances, it has been therefore submitted that the order dated 28.03.2012 is vitiated in law as a suit under the Act of 1963 has been converted into a regular suit for dispossession, by allowing the respondent-plaintiff to deposit the remaining court-fee by valuing the suit at Rs.8 Lacs. It is submitted that there was another issue, which was framed relating to suit being barred by limitation and the same has become redundant if the order passed by the court below dated 28.03.2012 is allowed to be sustained. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, taken this Court to the plaint and has pointed out that the plaint does not specifically mentions the suit to have been filed under section 6 of the Act of 1963. It has been further pointed out that the plaintiff has filed suit claiming title on the property and that he was wrongfully dispossessed. It has been further pointed out that the plaintiff has filed suit claiming title on the property and that he was wrongfully dispossessed. It has been further pointed out that the objection raised in the written statement by the petitioner-defendant was with regard to insufficient court-fee. It was averred in para 9 by the petitioner-defendant that in the suit court-fee under section 29 of the Act of 1961 was payable and the suit is, therefore, not maintainable in view of insufficient court-fee. 5. Further, in para 18 of the written statement, it has been asserted by the petitioner-defendant that under section 28 the court-fee was not payable but was to be paid as per section 29 of the Act of 1961. Thus, the stand which has been taken in the written statement is contrary to the stand which the petitioner has taken before this Court in the present writ petition and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner can not be allowed to take a contradictory stand to the stand which they have taken in written statement. 6. It has also been pointed out that under the order dated 28.03.2012 the issue which was being decided was only an issue relating to insufficient court-fee and whether the suit can be continued in view of insufficient court-fee paid by the plaintiff. The court has, after considering and examining all the aspects, proceeded to direct the plaintiff to deposit the court-fee after evaluating the suit at Rs.8 Lacs instead of Rs.4 Lacs in terms of section 29 of the Act of 1961 and there can be no fault in the order dated 28.03.2012. 7. Facing the aforesaid situation, the counsel for the petitioner has taken an alternate stand that the issue No. 6 has been decided in favour of petitioner and it would be affecting the findings relating to issue No. 7, there is no necessity to decide issue No. 6 and the same is liable to be deleted. 8. Having heard the submissions of both the parties and having gone through the facts, admittedly it is apparent that the petitioner had in his written statement taken up a stand relating to insufficient court-fee as required under section 29 of the Act of 1961. 8. Having heard the submissions of both the parties and having gone through the facts, admittedly it is apparent that the petitioner had in his written statement taken up a stand relating to insufficient court-fee as required under section 29 of the Act of 1961. It was his specific case that court-fee within the meaning of section 28 could not have been assessed on half amount of valuation of the suit and on the basis of averments, issue No. 6 was framed by the trial court. The submission that a presumption should be drawn that the suit has been filed under section 6 of the Act of 1963 because of court-fee having been paid within the meaning of section 28 of the Act of 1961, is wholly misconceived and liable to be rejected. It is a settled principle of law that a suit has to be read as the nature in which it has been submitted in the plaint. A presumption can not be drawn by the court contrary to what is stated in the plaint. 9. The plaintiff-respondent has specifically come out with the case that she was having title of the concerned property and that she was wrongfully dispossessed and she has prayed that she should be given possession over the property. In contrast, in the written statement, the petitioner-defendant has come out with the case that the court-fee was liable to be paid in terms of section 29 of the Act of 1961, meaning thereby that the petitioner who was having throughout a case that the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession as a regular suit and not a suit within the meaning of section 6 of the Act of 1963; in the circumstances, now once order dated 28.03.2012 has been passed whereby insufficient court-fee has been directed to be deposited, a different stand can not be taken to nullify the issue No. 6 and the decision thereto. 10. As regard the question that other issue relating to limitation is concerned, in view of issue No. 6 having been decided if any other aspect is required to be examined by the concerned court, may be so done while deciding the suit. 10. As regard the question that other issue relating to limitation is concerned, in view of issue No. 6 having been decided if any other aspect is required to be examined by the concerned court, may be so done while deciding the suit. However, the learned counsel has not been able to show any proposition of law where after a decision has been taken on an issue by the court, this Court under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution can delete such issue. In my humble view, such a proposition would be preposterous and this Court would be unnecessarily entering into an arena which is not required while deciding the matter under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 11. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.