JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners are plaintiffs of the Civil Original Suit No.127/2018. The defendant-respondents appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement-cum-counter claim. The plaintiff-petitioners raised objection that the counter claim has been under-valued; unless the defendants correct the valuation of counter claim to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-, the counter claim is not maintainable. Therefore, prayer was made to ask the defendants to raise the valuation and pay the court fee accordingly, consistent with the requirement of Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. The plaintiff-petitioners further prayed that in the event of default, the plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Vide impugned order dated 25.08.2023, the Court below has rejected the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioners. The Court below noticed the judgments of this Court in Smt. Cheina and Ors. Vs Nirbhay Singh reported in RLW 1997 (1) Raj. 688 as well as Smt. Geeta Devi Vs Shri Gopal Krishan Vashistha and Anr. reported in RLW 1996 (1) Raj. 460 in support of its view that the question is a mixed question of law and fact and can be decided only after evidence as one of the issues. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners submits that the Court below has acted against the mandate of law contained in Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 and judgment of this Court in Mokham Chand Dasot & Anr Vs ADJ 3 Jaipur City reported in 2006 (3) RLW 1858. 3. The provision of Section 11 of Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation reads as follows:- “Sec. 11. Decision as to proper fee. – (1) In every suit instituted in any Court, the Court shall, before ordering the plaint to be registered, decide on the materials and allegations contained in plaint and on the materials contained in the statement, if any, filed under section 10, the proper fee payable thereon, the decision being however subject to review, further review and correction in the manner specified in the succeeding sub-sections. (2) Any defendant may plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been property valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. (2) Any defendant may plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been property valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before the hearing of the suit as contemplated by Order XVIII in the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908). If the Court decides that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the Court's decision and the deficit fee shall be paid. If the plaint be not so amended or if the deficit fee be not paid within the time allowed, the plaint shall be rejected and the Court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding costs of the suit. (3) A defendant added after issues have been framed on the merits of the claim may, in the written statement filed by him, plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant on the merits of the claim, and if the Court finds that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall follow the procedure laid down in sub-section (2). Explanation.- Nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a defendant added as a successor or a representative in interest of a defendant who was on record before issues were framed on the merits of the claim and who had an opportunity to file a written statement pleading that the subject-matter of the suit was not properly valued or that the fee paid was not sufficient. (4)(a) Wherever a case comes up before a Court of Appeal, it shall be lawful for such Court, either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties, to consider the correctness of any order passed by the lower Court affecting the fee payable on the plaint or written statement or in any other proceeding in the lower Court and determine the proper fee payable thereon. Explanation.- A case shall be deemed to come before a Court of Appeal even if the appeal relates only to a part of the subject-matter of the suit. (b) If the court of Appeal decides that the fee paid in the lower Court is not sufficient, the Court shall require the party liable to pay the deficit fee within such time as may be fixed by it. (c) If the deficit fee is not paid within the time fixed and the default is in respect of a relief which has been dismissed by the lower Court and which the appellant seeks in appeal, the appeal shall be dismissed, but if the default is in respect of a relief which has been decreed by the lower Court, the deficit fee shall be recoverable as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (d) If the fee paid in the lower Court is in excess, the Court shall direct the refund of the excess to the party who is entitled to it. (5) All questions as to value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts arising on the written statement of a defendant shall be heard and decided before the hearing of the suit as contemplated by Order XVIII in the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908). Explanation.- In this section, the expression “merits of the claim" refers to matters which arise for determination to the suit, not being matters relating to the frame of the suit, misjoinder of parties and causes of action, the jurisdiction of the court to entertain or try the suit or the fee payable but inclusive of matters arising on pleas of res judicata, limitation and the like.” 4. In the case of Mokham Chand Dasot (supra), a Bench of this Court was of the view that the issue of valuation of suit requires to be decided prior to hearing of the suit on merit as contemplated by Order 18 of the First Schedule of CPC. Whatever decision is taken by the Court is to be complied with by the plaintiff. 5. Evidently, no case for rejection of plaint is made out as stipulated in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, especially, Clause (b) and (c) of the said Rule, on which the plaintiff-petitioners have relied. Whatever decision is taken by the Court is to be complied with by the plaintiff. 5. Evidently, no case for rejection of plaint is made out as stipulated in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, especially, Clause (b) and (c) of the said Rule, on which the plaintiff-petitioners have relied. Clause (b) and (c) of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC reads as follows:- “(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 written 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” 6. The aforesaid ground would arise only when the Court directs the plaintiff to correct the valuation within time fixed and the plaintiff fails or the Court directs payment of insufficient stamp within time fixed and the plaintiff fails. In the case on hand, the Court has not directed the respondent to correct the valuation. 7. So far, the legality and propriety of the order of the Court in refusal of prayer of the plaintiffs for direction to the defendants to correct the valuation is concerned, the said direction is not revisable under Section 115 CPC for the reason of bar contained in proviso to the said Section, which requires that if the impugned order would have been passed in favour of the party applying for revision, the suit would have been finally disposed of. 8. Accordingly, the instant Civil Revision stands dismissed.