Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -defendant under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dt. 05.02.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 263 of 2010, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff has filed the suit in respect of the agriculture lands seeking injunction and other prayers against the petitioner -defendant. In the said suit, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC alleging inter -alia that the respondent -plaintiff had not paid the requisite Court fees, and that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned order, against which the present revision petition has been filed.
(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. M.C. Jain for the petitioner that the trial Court has committed an error in not rejecting the plaint of the respondent -plaintiff on the ground of non -payment of requisite Court fees, and also on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. According to him, the lands in question being agriculture lands, the prayer sought in the suit could not be granted by the Civil Court and it is only the Revenue Court, which would have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Mr. Jain has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Jaswant Singh etc. v. Board of Rev. & Ors.,, 1984 RLR 791 in support of his submissions. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and to the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it appears that the petitioner had sought to reject the plaint of the respondent -plaintiff on two grounds, namely, that the plaintiff had not paid the requisite Court fees, and that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is needless to say that for the purpose of rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(c), the Court has to direct the plaintiff requiring him to supply the requisite stamp paper within the time fixed by the Court, and if the plaintiff fails to do so, the plaint could be rejected. In the instant case, no such order appears to have been passed by the trial Court directing the respondent -plaintiff to supply the requisite stamp paper of Court fees and, therefore, the plaint could not be rejected under Rule 11(c) of Order 7. So far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, as rightly observed by the trial Court, it would be a mixed question of law and fact, and the plaint could be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) only if the suit appears from the statement made in the plaint to be barred by any law. The learned counsel Mr. Jain for the petitioner has failed to point out from the statements made in the plaint that the suit was barred by any law. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, and hence the present petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.;