JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against order dated 22.7.14 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, stands dismissed. 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction inter alia against the petitioner. The suit is being contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement thereto. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner preferred an application seeking rejection of the plaint stating that the plaint does not contain specific averments regarding accrual of the cause of action. That apart, it was contended that the value of the suit property is disclosed to be more than Rs.2 crores and since the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, ad valorem court fee is required to be paid on the value of the suit property whereas, the plaintiff has paid the court fees only Rs.200/- and therefore, the plaint being insufficiently stamped, deserves to be rejected. 4. The application has been rejected by the court below observing that the plaintiff has made specific averments regarding accrual of the cause of action in various paras and therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that no specific para is incorporated in regard to accrual of cause of action. The court arrived at the finding that the question of the plaintiff being in possession of the suit property can only be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties and therefore, at this stage, the plaint cannot be rejected treating it to be insufficiently stamped. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff has not disclosed the specific date of accrual of cause of action whereas as per Order 7, Rule 1 (e) CPC, the plaint must contain the facts about cause of action. Learned counsel submitted that as per provisions of Section 35(1) of Rajasthan Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (for short "the Act of 1961"), in a suit for partition of immovable property, the court fee has to be paid on the market value of the property and thus, the plaint presented by the plaintiff paying the court fee a sum of Rs.200/- is apparently insufficiently stamped and therefore, deserves to be rejected. 6. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. It is well settled that while deciding an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 , the court is not competent to go into correctness or otherwise of allegations contained in the plaint. Indisputably, if the plaint does not disclose the cause of action, the same is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and if the plaint is written upon the paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp papers within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so, it can be rejected in terms of Order 7, Rule 11 (c) CPC. 8. A bare perusal of the plaint copy whereof is made available to the court by the petitioner herein, during the course of hearing, which is taken on record, reveals that the plaintiff has made the specific averments regarding the accrual of cause of action in respect of the partition of the property by metes and bounds as also regarding the permanent injunction sought for and therefore, the contention sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner that the plaint does not disclose cause of action is devoid of any merit. 9. Coming to the question of plaint being insufficiently stamped, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has claimed specific share in the property and has pleaded joint possession thereof and therefore, the stand sought to be taken by the petitioner that keeping in view the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Act of 1961, is also devoid of merit. Obviously, the question of possession over the property is a question of fact, which is disputed by the petitioner shall be determined by the court on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. In any case, there being specific averment made regarding joint possession of the suit property, the plaint cannot be rejected invoking the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Act of 1961, which is attracted only when the plaintiff has been excluded from possession. In this view of the matter, the court below has rightly declined to reject the plaint invoking the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (c) CPC as prayed for. 10. In this view of the matter, the court below has rightly declined to reject the plaint invoking the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (c) CPC as prayed for. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, 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. 11. In the result, the revision petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******