ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.206 of 2015 in O.S.No.400 of 2011, on the file of Additional Sub-Court, Dindigul dated 18.04.2015. 2. The petitioners are the defendants 5,6,7,14,16,25,26 and 27 in the Suit in O.S.No.400 of 2011. In this Suit, the first respondent is the plaintiff. The respondents 2 to 32 are the defendants 6 to 13, 15, 17 to 22, 24, 26 to 42. The first respondent filed a Suit in O.S.No.400 of 2011 for partition. The petitioners and other respondents filed written statement as early in the year 2000-2009 itself. After framing issues, the trial was commenced. At that time, the petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.206 of 2015 to reject the plaint, on the ground that the first respondent/plaintiff has not paid correct Court Fee. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit and denied the averments made by the petitioner and he also stated that he has paid correct Court fee as per the provisions of the 37(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fee Suit Valuation Act, 1955. The learned Judge considering the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the I.A.No.400 of 2011 on 18.04.2015. Against the said dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contented that the plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, at any stage of the Suit, the learned Judge erred in dismissing the application on the ground of delay instead of considering the same on merits. The learned Judge failed to see that the first respondent/plaintiff has admitted in the plaint that the separate enjoyment of the petitioners which clearly shows that Court Fee paid by the first respondent is not correct and plaint is liable to be rejected. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.206 of 2015 for rejection of plaint, only to drag on the proceedings. In the year 2011, this Court, by order, dated 28.04.2011, in C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.894 of 2011 directed the trial Judge to dispose the Suit within four months from the date of receipt of order of Civil Revision Petition. Already trial commenced, witnesses were examined and documents were marked. In the year 2011, this Court, by order, dated 28.04.2011, in C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.894 of 2011 directed the trial Judge to dispose the Suit within four months from the date of receipt of order of Civil Revision Petition. Already trial commenced, witnesses were examined and documents were marked. The petitioners at this stage, have come up with the I.A.No.206 of 2015 for rejection of the plaint, only to drag on the proceedings and therefore prayed for dismissal of the said order. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 6. From the materials, it is seen that the trial of the Suit commenced, witnesses were examined and documents were also marked. This Court, by order dated 28.04.2011, in C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.894 of 2011 directed the trial Judge, to dispose the suit within four months. 7. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the first respondent is aged at 70 years in the year 1999, and now she is aged 87 years and the petition to reject the plaint is only to drag on the proceedings is acceptable. The learned Judge considered all the facts and materials available on record and dismissed the application. Hence, there is no reason warranting interference by this Court in the said order. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.