JUDGMENT Manoj Misra,J. Heard learned counsel for the defendant-revisionists. 2. The instant revision has been filed challenging an order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Meerut in S.C.C. Suit No.18 of 2008 by which the application of the defendant-revisionists for rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as also for returning the plaint to court having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the matter, under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, has been rejected. 3. In respect of the prayer to reject the plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court below has returned a finding that from the averments made in the plaint it cannot be said that no cause of action was disclosed to maintain the suit nor there was any good reason to reject the plaint under the said provision. The grievance of the revisionist is that the suit has been over valued by claiming a higher rate of rent by wrongly relying on a decision of this Court in Milap Singh's case. It is alleged that the suit should have been valued on the agreed rate of rent and, if it was so, the suit could have been decided by a court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The court below rejected the aforesaid plea on the ground that the jurisdiction of the court is determined on the plaint averments and not on the merit of those averments. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rent at higher rate, as claimed, or not, can always be decided by the court while deciding the suit. Since the suit, as framed, was maintainable before the court concerned, the court rightly rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. So far as the plea under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is concerned, the learned counsel failed to demonstrate that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action or for any other reason was liable to be rejected. I therefore do not find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The revision is misconceived and is dismissed.