JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Brij Narayan Saini has challenged the order dated 24.8.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bundi whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Jai Narayan Saini (the plaintiff/non-petitioner No.1 before this court) had filed a suit for partition and for permanent injunction against his brother, Brij Narayan Saini (the petitioner before this court), against his father, Kanhaiya Lal, and against his uncle, Vijay Kishan. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC against the plaintiff. In the application, he pleaded that the plaintiff is seeking partition of ancestral property that belonged to their grandfather, Late Moti Shankar. Moti Shankar had two sons, namely Kanhaiya Lal and Vijay Kishan, and a daughter, namely Kanni Bai. Upon Moti Shankar's death, the property devolved as ⅓rd on each of his children. Kanni Bai willed her property in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, her share devolved down to him. His uncle, Vijay Kishan, had filed an appeal before the District Collector, but the same was dismissed. The petitioner had also filed a suit for partition which was decreed in his favour. However, the plaintiff has not prayed for setting aside of the judgment passed by the revenue court in his favour. 4. Secondly, that the plaintiff and the petitioner have another brother, namely Satya Narayan, and a sister, namely Sushila. But neither of these two persons have been impleaded as defendant in the civil suit. Thus, the suit suffers from non-joinder of parties. 5. Thirdly, that the correct court fees has not been paid under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Evaluation Act. Therefore, the petitioner prayed that the plaint should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, by order dated 24.8.2013, as mentioned above, the said application has been dismissed. Hence, this revision petition before this court. 6. Mr. S.C. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has overlooked the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Under the said provision, a male coparcener can no longer file a suit for partition as long as his father is alive. Since the father, namely Kanhaiya Lal, is alive, the petitioner could not have filed a suit for partition. Under the said provision, a male coparcener can no longer file a suit for partition as long as his father is alive. Since the father, namely Kanhaiya Lal, is alive, the petitioner could not have filed a suit for partition. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 8. Although a copy of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has not been submitted by the petitioner, but the gist of the said application has been mentioned in the impugned order, as mentioned above by this court. A bare perusal of the pleas raised by the petitioner in the application clearly reveal that in the application, he did not raise the plea with regard to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the said plea is misplaced before this court. 9. The plea with regard to setting aside the judgment of the revenue court could not be considered at the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Similarly, the plea with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties can only be decided after framing of the issues and at the time of final judgment. As far as non-payment of correct court fees is concerned, again the plea cannot be decided at the initial stage of dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Thus, the learned Judge was justified in concluding that the three pleas raised by the petitioner in his application do not fall within the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 10. Needless to say, the revisional jurisdiction of this court is an extremely limited one. Since there is no jurisdictional error committed by the learned Judge, this court does not find any merit in the present revision petition. 11. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******