JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 3.8.16 passed by the Civil Judge, Sujangarh (Churu) in Civil Suit No. 5/09, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, stands dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent-plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction, which is being contested by the petitioners-defendants by filing a written statement thereto. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners-defendants preferred an application under Section 11 of Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") read with Order 7, Rule 11 and 151 CPC. The rejection was sought on the ground that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and has not paid the requisite court fee. It was contended that the suit was required to be valued for each reliefs separately and accordingly, the court fee was required to be paid. The application was disposed of by the court vide order dated 21.7.15 with the directions to the plaintiff to pay the court fee after valuation of the suit in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order passed by the court, the plaintiff amended the plaint and paid the deficient court fee. However, the petitioners-defendant made an application under Section 151 CPC stating that the valuation made by the plaintiff is not proper and the suit is required to be valued taking the market value of the property as Rs.6,60,715/-. The application preferred was disposed of by the trial court with the directions to the plaintiff to make the valuation of the suit in consonance with the order dated 21.7.15. The plaintiff was given last opportunity to make the valuation of the suit for the reliefs claimed separately and to pay the court fee accordingly. In compliance of the order passed by the court, the plaintiff filed the amended plaint on 9.2.16 and paid the court fee for each relief claimed separately, while disclosing the market value of the property as Rs.4,42,316/-. The petitioners-defendants preferred yet another application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the market value of the property as assessed by the Collector (Stamp), Bikaner is Rs.6,60,715/- and therefore, the court fee paid disclosing the market value of the property as Rs.4,42,316/- is deficient and therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected. 3. The petitioners-defendants preferred yet another application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the market value of the property as assessed by the Collector (Stamp), Bikaner is Rs.6,60,715/- and therefore, the court fee paid disclosing the market value of the property as Rs.4,42,316/- is deficient and therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected. 3. After due consideration, the application has been rejected by the court below observing that the market value of the property cannot be assessed at this stage and the issue arising in this regard shall be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioners having failed to comply with the order passed by the court for proper valuation of the suit and payment of court fee, the suit was liable to be rejected. Learned counsel submitted that the value of the property as assessed by the Collector (Stamp), Bikaner has to be accepted to be the market value of the property and therefore, apparently, the valuation made by the petitioners is not just and proper and therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 6. It is to be noticed that vide orders dated 21.7.15 and 21.1.16 passed by the trial court, the respondent-plaintiff was directed to pay the court fee for each relief separately, assessed on the basis of the market value of the property. It is not disputed before this court that market value of the property at the time of registration of the gift deed was disclosed to be Rs.4,42,316/-, though on reference made, the Collector (Stamp), Bikaner determined the market value of the property subject matter of the instrument presented for registration at Rs.6,60,715/-. If the plaintiff is not accepting the value of the property as determined by the Collector (Stamp), Bikaner as correct, it remains a contentious issue between the parties, which needs to be determined on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. If the plaintiff is not accepting the value of the property as determined by the Collector (Stamp), Bikaner as correct, it remains a contentious issue between the parties, which needs to be determined on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. Further, if according to the petitioners-defendants, the trial court has erred in not determining the value of the property and the court fee payable on the application preferred on his behalf under Section 11 of the Act, nothing prevented them from questioning the legality of the said order by availing the appropriate remedy. But in any case, the plaintiff having valued the relief claimed in the suit in consonance with order dated 21.7.15 passed by the court and having supplied the requisite stamp papers in consonance with the order passed by the court, the plaint cannot be rejected in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 (b) & (c) CPC. 7. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 8. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.