JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this Revision Petition, filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner assails the order passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Miscellaneous Application, bearing Registration No.769 of 2023 (C.M.A. No.334/6 of 2023), in terms whereof an application filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order under challenge, this Court does not finds any infirmity therein. 3. The petitioner happens to be one of the defendants in a Civil Suit filed by the respondents herein in which the plaintiffs have prayed for the following reliefs:­ “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the present suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the following reliefs be granted to the plaintiff: (a) A preliminary decree declaring the shares of the parties to the suit may kindly be passed; (b) Final decree for partition may kindly be passed by ordering partition of suit property by metes and bounds by passing a decree of mandatory injunction; (c) Decree for rendition of accounts against defendant no.1 directing him to render true and correct accounts of income received by defendant no.1 on account of use of joint property. (d) A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction be also passed against the defendants restraining them from operating the commercial parking, alienating, transferring or encumbering or changing the nature of the property in question in any manner either personally or through its agents, servants, representatives and defendants be also restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff of the property in question mentioned herein above. (e) Any other suitable relief as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. (f) That the cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.” 4. (e) Any other suitable relief as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. (f) That the cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.” 4. The application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was preferred by the petitioner primarily on the ground that as the suit was for partition of land assessed to land revenue, therefore, the same was not maintainable before the learned Civil Court as partition can be carried out only under Chapter IX of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. Another ground taken in the application for rejection of the plaint was that the plaintiffs had not properly assessed the value of the suit for the purpose of affixation of the Court fee. 5. In terms of the impugned order, learned Trial Court has rejected the application, inter alia, by holding that in terms of the averments made in the plaint, the stand of the plaintiffs was that the defendants had altered the nature of the suit land from agriculture to commercial by levelling the same, by constructing ramp thereupon and by converting the same to commercial parking. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the nature of the suit land ceased to be agricultural and therefore, the Civil Court was having jurisdiction to adjudication the lis. With regard to the second plea taken in the application for rejection of the plaint, learned Trial Court by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Hushan Kaushal versus Bal Raj AIR 2002 HP 94 , held that the plaintiffs had mentioned in the plaint that the property was jointly owned and possessed by the parties and it was asserted in the plaint that defendant No.1 had converted a part of the suit land into commercial parking and was usurping the profit earned from the same without rendering true accounts. which demonstrated that plaintiffs had never averred that they were out of possession and in these circumstances, the plaintiffs were not required to pay the Court fee on market value. 7. which demonstrated that plaintiffs had never averred that they were out of possession and in these circumstances, the plaintiffs were not required to pay the Court fee on market value. 7. It is settled law that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court interferes with the orders of the learned Court only if the said Court has either exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or has exercised jurisdiction vested in it with material irregularity. 8. Herein, it is not the case of the petitioner before this Court that the order under challenge has been passed by the learned Trial Court either by exercising jurisdiction not vested in it or by not exercising jurisdiction vested in it. Therefore, the sole question which the Court is to determine is as to whether in the adjudication of the application can it be said that the learned Trial Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it with material irregularity? 9. Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the plaint, inter alia, shall be rejected in a case where (a) It does not discloses 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 a requisite stamp­paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, was fails to do so; (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law etc. 10. Now, as already observed hereinabove, the contention of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court was that the suit was barred by law as the suit for partition was not maintainable before the learned Trial Court. 11. 10. Now, as already observed hereinabove, the contention of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court was that the suit was barred by law as the suit for partition was not maintainable before the learned Trial Court. 11. Para­5 of the plaint demonstrates that it was mentioned therein by the plaintiffs that defendant No.1, who inter aila happens to be the petitioner before this Court, in the year 2014 stood superannuated form Solan Brewery, where he was working for his livelihood and thereafter he converted the land from agricultural one into commercial one by carrying out the business of commercial parking on the land. It is further averred in this para of the plaint that commercial activity carried out by the defendants is without the consent of the plaintiffs. 12. Whether or not, this contention of the plaintiffs is factually and legally sustainable is something for the learned Trial Court to decide in the course of the trial, but on the face of the averments made in the plaint when the contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit land ceases to be agricultural land and happens to be commercial land, in this background the finding returned by the learned Trial Court that the suit was maintainable before it, cannot be said to be a finding returned by exercising the jurisdiction vested in it with material irregularity. Similarly, the findings returned by the learned Trial Court with regard to the affixation of the Court fee can also not be faulted with, as these findings stand returned on the basis of the law declared by this Court which stands referred to in the order passed by the learned Trial Court, which law still holds the field. 13. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed in limine. However, it is clarified that the observation which have been made by this Court in this order are only for the purpose of the adjudication of this Revision Petition which stands filed against an order, in terms whereof, the application filed by the present petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed. 14. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.