[2026:RJ-JP:32470] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 267/2026 CNR: RJHC020523072026 | URN: CR / 441U / 2026 1 Sunita Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Prasad, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Rampura Rewari, Tehsil And Dis- trict Rewari, (Haryana). 2 Manish @ Munna S/o Shri Mehar Chand, R/o Village Tajipur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendragarh (Haryana) ----Petitioners Versus Savitri Devi W/o Shri Jaswant Singh, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Village Khandoda, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari (Haryana) Through Special Power Of Attorney Dharmendra Yadav S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Aged 42 Years, R/o Village Dawani, Tehsil Behrod, District Kotputli-Behrod, (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Arya For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 17/08/2026 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned order dated 20.05.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Neemrana, District Kotputli-Behror, in Civil Suit No. 34/07/2026 titled as 'Savitri Devi Vs. Sunita & Ors.', whereby the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was rejected. 2. The brief facts germane to the present revision petition are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, which was purchased from [2026:RJ-JP:32470] (2 of 5) [CR-267/2026] Sudheer Kumar vide a registered sale deed dated 24.05.2019, and that the seller, i.e., Sudheer Kumar, had purchased the same from one Smt. Mishri Devi vide a registered sale deed dated 31.12.2018. 2.1. It was further averred that on 25.12.2025, the plaintiff and her Power of Attorney (POA) holder were summoned to Police Station, Neemrana following a report lodged by the defendants, and that during the said enquiry, it transpired that the defendants hold a sale deed for an entirely different parcel of land admeasuring 277.77 sq. yards. 2.2. It was averred that the cause of action arose on 15.01.2026, when the defendants, with the ulterior motive of forcibly occupying the suit property, got into an altercation with the plaintiff and the POA holder, and further threatened to dispossess them from the suit property. The plaintiff, accordingly, prayed for a decree declaring her to be the absolute owner of the suit property and also sought a permanent injunction against the defendants. 3. Upon service of summons in the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that the valuation of the suit property made by the plaintiff is not in accordance with Section 24 of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. It was further contended that, in view of the correct valuation of the property, the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate. [2026:RJ-JP:32470] (3 of 5) [CR-267/2026] 4. The aforesaid application was contested by the plaintiff/respondent by filing a reply thereto, vehemently opposing the contents of the said application. 5. After considering the arguments advanced by the petitioners, the said application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was dismissed by the learned Court below vide order dated 20.05.2026, while observing that the objections raised by the petitioners constitute mixed questions of fact and law, which are to be adjudicated upon after the framing of issues and during the course of trial. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Court below has seriously erred in dismissing the application without properly appreciating the issues raised therein. It is further submitted that upon a plain reading of the averments made in the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff has failed to pay the requisite court fee in terms of Section 24 of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, and that the suit is not triable by the Court of the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate due to a lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present revision petition may be allowed, the impugned order dated 20.05.2026 may be quashed and set aside, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC may be allowed, and consequently, the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff may be rejected. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:32470] (4 of 5) [CR-267/2026] 8. It would be apt to reproduce Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, which reads as under :- "Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9. [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] " 9. From a bare perusal of the plaint, the reply thereto, and the impugned order, it is evident that the present suit has been filed for a declaration and permanent injunction for the protection of possession, and that in paragraph 11 of the plaint, the plaintiff has valued the relief at Rs.400/-. 10. It is a trite and settled principle of law that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must confine itself strictly to the averments made in the plaint. The issues sought to be raised by the petitioners regarding the non- payment of court fee in terms of Section 24 of the Act of 1961 and [2026:RJ-JP:32470] (5 of 5) [CR-267/2026] the question of pecuniary jurisdiction do not fall within the narrow contours of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC at this preliminary stage. 11. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted, and the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 20.05.2026 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or any legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 13. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 14. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J 8/Seema