ORDER : Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. 1. The order dated 1.10.2020 and 1.12.2020 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Morena in Civil Suit No. 91A/2020, have been called in question by way of present revision, whereby the court below has partially dismissed the applications under Order 7 Rule 11(B)(D) CPC and under Order 7 Rule 11(C)(D) CPC filed by the present petitioner/defendant. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 91A/2020 before Civil Judge Class-1, Morena, District Morena, with the pleadings that the respondents/plaintiffs are the Bhumiswami and possession holder of the disputed property. Earlier, disputed property was in the ownership of the mother of the respondents/plaintiffs. After the death of respondents/plaintiffs' mother, the respondents/plaintiffs and their father became the registered owner of the property in question. After the death of father of the respondents/plaintiffs on 20/1/2019, respondents/plaintiffs became the owner and possession holder of the disputed property. According to the petitioner/defendant, she purchased the property from the father of the respondents/plaintiffs by registered sale deed dated 23/12/2014 challenging which the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant. 3. The petitioner/defendant has specifically raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is illegal and infructuous. The valuation in the suit is wrong and is insufficient and the respondents/plaintiffs also did not pay the sufficient court fee as per valuation in the suit. Therefore, applications under Order 7 Rule 11(B)(D) CPC and Under Order 7 Rule 11(C)(D) had been filed by the petitioner/defendant for rejecting the plaint being not maintainable. The trial Court has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner/defendant. Hence, this revision petition is preferred. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that the applications under Order 7 Rule 11(B)(D) of CPC and under Order 7 Rule 11(C) (D) of CPC were filed by the defendant with the pleading that the relief claimed was not valued and on being asked by the Court below to correct the valuation within time, the plaintiffs failed to do so as well as the respondents/plaintiffs did not pay the sufficient court-fee as per valuation in the suit, despite the Court below dismissed the applications filed by the defendant. It is further submitted that impugned orders Annexure A-1 and A-2 are illegal and arbitrary and are liable to be quashed. Respondents/plaintiffs cannot value the suit arbitrarily. Valuation of the suit, according to the respondents/plaintiffs is Rs. 18,37,400/-. The actual valuation of the suit, according to law, is Rs. 3,37,400/- i.e., on the valuation of the sale-deed and the valuation of suit according to market value i.e. Rs. 15,00,000/- is wrong and illegal. Even if the valuation of the suit is considered to be Rs. 18,37,400/-, then the respondents/plaintiffs are liable to pay the court-fee on the aforesaid valuation of Rs. 18,37,400/- but sufficient court-fee had not been paid by the respondents/plaintiffs and on these premises, the suit filed by the respondent is liable to be rejected. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of J. Vasanthi & Ors. vs. N. Ramani & Ors., ( AIR 2017 SC 3813 ), Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & Ors., (2010 AIR SCW 3308) and Shamsher Singh vs. Rajinder Prasad & Ors., (1973 AIR SC 2384) and the judgments passed by Division Benches as well as Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Sudhirdas vs. United Church of D Canada India & Ors., [2020 (3) MPLC 119 (M.P.)], Israt Jahan vs. Rajja Begum & Ors., [ 2010 (I) MPWN 32 ], Rajkumar Jain vs. Savitri Devi & Ors., [ 2010 (I) MPWN 63 ] and Hazi Subanul Haq vs. Mohammad Israr, [1983 JLJ-SN 55]. Hence, prayed to allow this civil revision. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has opposed the revision and has submitted that no error has been committed by the trial Court in rejecting the applications under Order 7 Rule 11(B)(D) and under Order 7 Rule 11(C)(D) of CPC and the revision before this Court is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In the impugned order dated 01/12/2020, learned Trial Court has observed as under:- ^^mHk;i{kksa ds rdksZa ds ifjis{; esa Ádj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] ftlls ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd oknhx.k }kjk nqxkZiqjh dkWyksuh fLFkr ekStk f'kdkjiqj rglhy o ftyk eqjSuk ds Hkwfe losZ Øekad 356 feu 3 ds va'k Hkkx 44 xqf.kr 15 QhV Hkkx ij fufeZr Hkou ds lanHkZ esa LoRo ?kks"k.kk] LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk gsrq nkok is'k fd;k gS vkSj oknxzLr Hkou dk ewY;kdau LoRo ?kks"k.kk gsrq 15 yk[k #i;s ,o Áfrokfn;k }kjk lEikfnr foØ; i= fnukad 23-12-2014 esa vafdr ÁfrQy jkf'k 3]37]400 #i;s ds vk/kkj ij dqy U;k;'kqYd 1100 #ips vnk fd;k x;k gSA ;g voyksduh; gS fd vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 ds varxZr dsoy oknh }kjk nkos esa fd;s x;s vfHkopuksa dks gh ns[kk tkuk vko';d gksrk gSA oknh }kjk nkos ds fy, tks ewY;kadu fd;k x;k gS] mlds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; dks Ádj.k dks Jo.k djus dh {ks=kf/kdkj gksuk nf'kZr gksrh gSA Áfroknh }kjk tks vkifRr;k yh xbZ gSa] og lk{; dh fo"k;oLrq gS] ftUgsa Áfroknh vius tckonkos esa mBkus ds fy, Lora= gSA** 8. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as under:- "Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint-- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9; Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff." 9. It is well settled principle of law that while considering the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint alone are to be looked into. 10. The scope of scrutiny at the stage of consideration of an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC is confined only to the averments made in the plaint which could not be decided by way of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. See, Surjit Kaur Gill and another vs. Adarsh Kaur Gill and another [ (2014) 16 SCC 125 ); P.V. Guru Raj Reddy vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and others [ (2015) 8 SCC 331 ]; and, Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal [ (2017) 13 SCC 174 ]. 11. In view of the aforementioned reason, in my view, the Court below has not committed any legal infirmity or perversity while passing the impugned orders. 11. In view of the aforementioned reason, in my view, the Court below has not committed any legal infirmity or perversity while passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, the civil revision filed by the petitioner/defendant is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.