JUDGMENT: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. By way of present revision petition, the defendants petitioners have challenged the order dated 12/01/2017 passed on by the learned trial court disposing of their application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. 2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while disposing of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, no decision has been given on the application and instead certain directions have been issued to the concerned plaintiff. 3. While it is true that the learned trial court has not passed any decision on the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, from the facts which have been noted in the impugned order dated 12/01/2017, it is apparent that the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was submitted on the ground that the property in dispute was an agricultural land and it was the case of the petitioners that the suit was not maintainable and revenue suit should have been filed. On this aspect, learned trial court has given a finding that the property situates in the urban area (Abadi Land) and contention of the petitioners, therefore, stands rejected. 4. As regards the allegations of the petitioners in their application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC relating to the place where the property is situated and of not producing cogent evidence in support of the averments made in the plaint, it is apparent that the stage at which the application was submitted was not the stage where evidence could have been recorded by the learned trial court and therefore, at the said stage, the application was wholly misconceived in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & ors. v. Lala J.R. Education Society & ors. 2016 JT (10) 524. 5. Consequently, instant revision petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.