Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC before the trial Court. The application was filed inter -alia with the averments that the plaintiff has only valued House No. K -183 and has paid Court fees, however, a relief regarding four plots situated at Pali has also been claimed, but no valuation regarding said plots have been put and therefore, the suit has been under valued and the plaint was liable to be rejected. The trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that neither in the application nor during the course of arguments any plea indicating the valuation, which according to the defendant was the correct valuation was indicated. The Court was also of the opinion that the question was mixed question of law and fact which could only be determined after framing issues and the parties have led evidence on the said issue and consequently dismissed the said application.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent that the application under Order VII, Rule 11(b) CPC was not even maintainable as the said provision comes into picture only when a determination is made by the Court regarding under valuation of the suit and the plaintiff fails to follow the said determination and consequential direction by the trial Court.
(3.) THE application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC was misconceived at the stage, when the same was filed and the same was rightly rejected by the trial Court, as such, there is no substance in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. It would be open for the petitioner to move proper and appropriate application for the relief which he has sought in the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.;