JUDGMENT : MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J. 1. The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC has been filed by the petitioners-defendants against the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Civil Original Case No. 8/2020 whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant no. 1 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in law while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that under the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, the respondents-plaintiffs have not paid the requisite court fees in accordance with the valuation of the suit property and thus, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has completely ignored this aspect of the matter. Thus, it was prayed that the present revision petition may be allowed and the impugned order dated 26.10.2023 may be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC be allowed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. As is the settled position of law, at the time of considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, only the averments in the plaint are material. As per the plaintiffs, the suit property is in joint possession and joint ownership of all the parties to the suit and thus, the court fees of Rs 220/- has been paid accordingly. Now, the issue as to whether court fees was proper or not or whether all parties are in joint possession and joint ownership of the disputed property or not are question of fact and law, which can be decided only after recording of evidence of both the parties. 5. In Babulal vs. Bhanwar Lal and Others, MANU/RH/1488/2023, a co-ordinate bench of this Court has in Para 10 held that: “10. So far as the valuation of the suit is concerned, the suit was valued by the plaintiffs for Rs. 1,50,000/- and the court fee of Rs. 10,125/- was paid qua the same. 5. In Babulal vs. Bhanwar Lal and Others, MANU/RH/1488/2023, a co-ordinate bench of this Court has in Para 10 held that: “10. So far as the valuation of the suit is concerned, the suit was valued by the plaintiffs for Rs. 1,50,000/- and the court fee of Rs. 10,125/- was paid qua the same. Regarding the ground of the same being deficit is concerned, it is the settled position of law that a plaint cannot ipso facto be rejected only on the basis of an averment been made by the defendant to the said effect. Law provides for the Court to direct the plaintiff to correct the valuation if it finds the same to be undervalued and further to direct to make the deficit court fee good if it finds the same to be insufficiently stamped. The plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that the market value of the disputed portion is Rs. 1,50,000/- and the payable court fee on the said valuation would be Rs. 10,125/- which is being paid. The issue whether the market price as averred by the plaintiff is correct or not, could also have been decided only after perusal of the documents, if any, placed on record by the defendant to prove the contrary. Obviously, the same could not have been done by the Court below within the purview of VII Rule 11, CPC. Hence, the conclusion of the Court that it could be decided only after an issue being framed, is totally in consonance with the governing law.” 6. Similarly, in Sharda Devi vs. Iqbal Singh and Others, MANU/RH/0310/2015, it has been categorically held by this Court that: “12. As far as question of court fees is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage of adjudication of an application under Order 7 Rule 11, a mini Trial for the purposes of ascertaining the correct valuation of land in dispute, is not warranted. Court fee is determined on the basis of pleadings made in the plaint and not the defence set up by the defendants, Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, clause (b) and (c) comes into play, when upon the meaningful reading of the plaint itself, the Court reaches a conclusion that the relevant claim is undervalued, or the plaint is undervalued or is insufficiently stamped. The defence raised is wholly irrelevant at such stage. The defence raised is wholly irrelevant at such stage. Section 11(2) of the Rajasthan Court Fees Act, comes into play only after the defendant pleads that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the Court Fees paid is not sufficient or in another words the Court is obliged to look at the pleadings and defence raised by the defendant, which is not envisaged under Order 7 Rule 11. Thus, from the over all assessment of the factual matrix as well as the legal principles, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court by passing the impugned order dated 22/08/2013, rejecting application of the petitioner-defendants filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, observing that the objections raised were mixed question of fact and law and would be adjudicated after parties have led evidence, has not committed any jurisdictional error or mistake calling for any interference by this Court and the revision petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.” 7. While inter-alia holding that the issue of proper court fees being paid is an issue between the plaintiff and the State, in Ratnavaramaraja vs. Vimla, MANU/SC/0361/1961, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Para 2 has held that: “2. The Court-fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action. By recognising that the defendant was entitled to contest the valuation of the properties in dispute as if it were a matter in issue between him and the plaintiff and by entertaining petitions preferred by the defendant to the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction against the order adjudging court-fee payable on the plaint, all progress in the suit for the trial of the dispute on the merits has been effectively frustrated for nearly five years. We fail to appreciate what grievance the defendant can make by seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate court-fee on his plaint. Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. How by an order relating to the adequacy of the court-fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may feel aggrieved, it is difficult to appreciate. Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. How by an order relating to the adequacy of the court-fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may feel aggrieved, it is difficult to appreciate. Again, the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by clauses (a) to (c) thereof and may be invoked on the ground of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Subordinate Court or assumption of jurisdiction which the court does not possess or on the ground that the court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The defendant who may believe and even honestly that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior court by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint........” 8. Thus, while considering an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, it is presumed that the averments contained in the plaint are true. The issue of suit valuation and deficit court fees being paid or not is a mixed question of law and fact and the same can be decided only after framing of issue in this aspect. At the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, neither the trial Court nor this Court is required to go into the pleadings/defence raised by the petitioner-defendant. Further, whether proper court fees has been paid or not, is essentially an issue between the plaintiff and the State. The defendant in the present case cannot be termed as an ‘aggrieved party’ so as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The present revision petition is thus, not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In view of the discussions made above and on relying upon the judicial precedents, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it. The instant revision petition is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs.