ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 16.3.17 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajsamand in Civil Suit No. 4/17, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, stands rejected. 2. The respondents filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction in respect of his share in a coparcenary property. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit filed for cancellation of the sale deed of the property has been undervalued by the plaintiff and the court fee paid is deficient. The petitioner also claimed that the suit filed is barred by limitation. 3. The application has been rejected by the court below observing that the plaintiff has claimed the relief of cancellation of the sale deed only to the extent of his ?th share in the coparcenary property and thus, the valuation made at Rs. 3,12,500/- appears to be in conformity with the provisions of Section 38 of Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1961. Regarding the question of limitation, the court observed that the question raised is mixed question of law and facts in respect whereof an appropriate issue has already been framed, which 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 plaintiff has sought cancellation of the sale deed of the property sold for consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- and thus, the suit filed for cancellation of the sale deed, valuing the suit property at Rs. 3,12,500/- is apparently undervalued. Learned counsel submitted that the court fee is required to be paid on the value of the subject matter of the suit and thus, the court fee paid while undervaluing the suit property is deficient. Learned counsel submitted that for cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.2.12, the suit has been filed on 7.2.17 and thus, the same deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 6. Learned counsel submitted that for cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.2.12, the suit has been filed on 7.2.17 and thus, the same deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, in the suit filed, the plaintiff has claimed ?th share in the suit property and accordingly, the prayer is made for declaration of sale deed dated 22.2.12 as null and void and cancellation thereof to the extent of ?th share of the plaintiff therein. 7. As per provisions of Section 38(2)(b) of the Act, if the part of the document is sought to be cancelled, the court fee has to be paid on the value of such part of the property and thus, taking into consideration the value of the property as disclosed in the sale deed, the valuation of ?th share in the disputed property in respect whereof the relief for declaration and cancellation is sought by the plaintiff appears to be just and proper. It is not disputed that the plaintiff has paid the court fees on the value of ?th share in the property quantified at Rs. 3,12,500/- and thus, the court fee paid cannot be said to be deficient. 8. Coming to the question of limitation, it is to be noticed that in the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed knowledge of the execution of the sale deed, cancellation whereof is sought in the suit, as on 13.1.17 and thus, from the perusal of the plaint, it cannot be said that the suit filed is barred by limitation. The contentious issue between the parties regarding the limitation which remains a mixed question of law and facts, needs to be decided by the court below on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. 9. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the trial court rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 10. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.