JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 16.2.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Etah rejecting the application 28-C 2 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., thereby refusing to reject the plaint of Original Suit No.27 of 2013, as well as order dated 9.7.2015 passed by District Judge, Etah in Civil Revision No.21 of 2015 dismissing the revision. 2. The petitioners, who are defendants in Original Suit No.27 of 2013, moved an application Paper No.28-C 2 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. According to them, the suit property is abadi land and it has wrongly been shown as agricultural property in the plaint. It was further alleged that the plaintiffs have paid inadequate court fee and thus, the plaint is liable to be rejected. 3. The trial court, after considering the plaint assertions, held that the plea, which is being raised by the defendants, require consideration of the evidence. It has been noted that according to the plaint assertions, the plaintiffs are the Bhumidhar of the suit property and the suit property is a land subject to payment of land revenue. Accordingly, the suit was valued treating the suit property as agricultural land. The trial court, therefore, held that the plaint cannot be rejected, as while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., only plaint assertions can be looked into. The order has been affirmed with the dismissal of the revision. 4. It is well settled that in considering the plea for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., only plaint assertions are to be looked into and neither the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement, nor the evidence of the defendant can be taken into consideration. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error, which may warrant interference in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.