JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 5th October, 2009, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur, dismissed the applications filed by the defendant-petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 read-with Section 151 CPC. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is noticed that the learned trial court while dismissing the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC observed that no exemption had been granted to the plaintiff-respondents with regard to payment of court fee, conversely the objection with regard to payment of less court fee was kept reserved and the plaintiff-respondents were conditionally permitted to file the suit. 3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution must be sparingly exercised to correct errors of jurisdiction and the like, but not to upset pure findings of fact. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the High Court should not interfere with the order of the inferior court, unless the same is found to be perverse or not based on any material or it results in manifesting injustice. 4. It appears from the impugned order that the application filed by the defendant-petitioner was rejected at that stage of the suit only. In the case of Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association reported in 2005 (2) Western Law Cases (supreme Court) Civil page 588 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: "10. Clause (d) of Order 7, Rule 11 speaks of suit, as appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 applies in those cases only where the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law in force." 5. In Saleem Bhai and Others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2003 (1) SCC 557 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held with reference to Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code that "the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. In Saleem Bhai and Others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2003 (1) SCC 557 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held with reference to Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code that "the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage." 6. The crux of aforesaid judgments is that the disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. Clause (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 applies in those cases only where the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute, shows that the suit is barred by any law in force. The learned trial court is found to have unerringly dismissed the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC at that stage. 7. The impugned order is found to be perfectly just and proper. There does not seem to be any perversity in the impugned order nor is it found to be contrary to the provisions of law. In view thereof, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned court below and the writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed. 8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******