Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants under Section 115 of CPC, challenging the order dated 01.11.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Lalsot, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.36/2013, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioners seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar for the petitioners that the respondent-plaintiff has not properly valued the suit, and not paid the requisite court fees, and therefore, his suit is liable to be rejected. According to him, looking to the prayers contained in the plaint, the Civil Court would not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in view of the provisions contained in Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. However, the learned counsel Mr. K.C. Sharma for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the trial court has rightly considered the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11, and dismissed the application, which order was being just and proper should not be interfered with.
(3.) Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking declaration, cancellation of will dated 12.12.1972, and for permanent injunction. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent-plaintiff has under valued the suit, and not paid the requisite court fees, however such a submission cannot be accepted for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11. It is settled legal position that the plaint could be rejected under clause (b) or (c) of the said provisions, when the Court directs the plaintiff to correct the valuation of the suit and to furnish the requisite stamp paper within a particular time limit, and if the plaintiff fails to comply with such order. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any order having been passed by the trial court, directing the respondent to correct the valuation of the suit, and furnish the requisite stamp paper. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, it is needless to say that such an issue being mixed question of law and fact, it could not be decided in the proceedings of Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC.;