JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.In this revision petition, the defendant-petitioner challenged the order dated 29.9.1999 of the District Judge, Tonk in Civil Suit No. 22/1999 whereby, the application filed by the defendant- petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was rejected. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that this order of the learned trial Court is wholly perverse and it cannot be allowed to stand. 3. It is really shocking and surprising that the Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional District Judge has decided the application filed by the defendant- petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC in a cursory and casual manner. In fact the ground given for rejection of this application is nonest. The dismissal of the suit has been prayed for on the ground that it has been filed with deficit Court fees. The learned trial Court has not decided the application on merits, but has taken short cut, which is wholly undesirable and unaccepted on the side of the judicial officer of the rank of the District Judge to dismiss this application on the ground that these objections are to be taken in the written statement and after framing issue same shall be decided. In this way, the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC is to be decided by the trial Court then this provision shall become redundant and nugatory. It is a different matter where on merits this application is accepted or not, but it could not have been disposed of in such a cursory and casual manner. 4. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that in view of the proviso inserted to Section 115 CPC by Section 12 of the Act 46 of 1999 w.e.f 1.7.2002 this revision petition is not maintainable. I do not find any substance in this objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner.This proviso reads as under : "Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings." 5. In case the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC is allowed, it would result in finally disposal of the suit. Thus, this preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner re- maintainability of the revision petition is devoid of any subs ne-e and merits. 6. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition succeeds and the same allowed. The order dated 29.9.1999 of the District Judge, Tonk in Civil Suit.No. 22/1999 is quashed and set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to decide-the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on merits in accordance with law and observations made in this order.Revision petition allowed. *******