ORDER : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order dated 30.01.2024 in IA No. 462 of 2021 in OS No.267 of 2020, passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Court’). 2. The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. 3. The brief facts of the case, as averred in the Revision Petition, are that the revision petitioner and the respondent got married as per the Hindu rites and traditions in Hyderabad on 07.04.1996; that they were blessed with three children; and that during the subsistence of their marriage, certain properties were purchased in India and also in USA. 3.2. The claim of the respondent is that a few properties were transferred from her father and brothers to the name of the petitioner as a gift, upon insistence of the petitioner, and a few were purchased in the name of the petitioner, but were financed by her father and brothers. That as certain disputes arose between the parties, they were living separately since 01.05.2018; and that as the parties were residing in USA, the respondent has filed Divorce Petition before the Common Wealth of Massachusetts, the Trial Court Probate, and the Family Court Department (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Foreign Court’)’ and that the parties also entered into a Parties Joint Stipulation deed, dated 18.04.2019, for division of the properties, financial issues, education of children, etc; that the Foreign Court by order dated 22.06.2020, vide Docket No.NO190424DR, granted divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under the Massachusetts General Law (MGL) and ruled upon other aspects in contention as well; one among them being the dispute with regard to division of the properties, wherein it was held that both the parties shall have 50-50 ownership over all the scheduled properties. 3.4 Accordingly, the respondent filed OS.No.267 of 2020 on the file of the District Court seeking partition of the schedule properties in terms of the Foreign Court Judgment dated 22.06.2020, since the said Court is in non-reciprocating country and the judgment of the said Court can be executed only if the Court having competent jurisdiction allows it. 3.4 Accordingly, the respondent filed OS.No.267 of 2020 on the file of the District Court seeking partition of the schedule properties in terms of the Foreign Court Judgment dated 22.06.2020, since the said Court is in non-reciprocating country and the judgment of the said Court can be executed only if the Court having competent jurisdiction allows it. 3.5 During the pendency of the said OS.No.267 of 2020, the revision petitioner filed an IA.No.462 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that there is no genuine cause of action, that the suit is barred by law and further, the suit is also undervalued and thereby, praying to reject the plaint filed by the respondent. The District Court, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 30.01.2024 dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri A.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel on record for the respondent. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law, facts of the case, and the probabilities of the matter. He further submitted that reliance is placed by the District Court on the judgment of a Foreign Court dated 22.06.2020, which is not binding or conclusive and, therefore, it cannot form basis for granting the relief of partition, as sought for by the respondent. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the District Court erred in construing that the Foreign Court judgment is reflecting a mutual agreement between the parties concerning the division of the properties situated in India, while simultaneously holding that the ground on which divorce was granted in the foreign jurisdiction, viz., namely irretrievable breakdown of marriage, is not a recognized ground under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 6. Learned senior counsel further contended that under Hindu law, there is no legal basis for granting 50% share to the wife in the husband's properties and as such, placing reliance on the Foreign Court judgment for division of the properties is misconceived and without legal sanction under Indian jurisprudence. 6. Learned senior counsel further contended that under Hindu law, there is no legal basis for granting 50% share to the wife in the husband's properties and as such, placing reliance on the Foreign Court judgment for division of the properties is misconceived and without legal sanction under Indian jurisprudence. He also contended that the suit instituted by the respondent does not conform to the requirements of Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. He further contended that the suit is barred by limitation and lacks a valid cause of action since the Foreign Court judgment, which is the foundation of the suit, was delivered ex-parte and several defendants arrayed in the present suit were not parties to the said foreign court proceedings and therefore, the judgment of the Foreign Court cannot be said to have any binding effect on them or on the properties situated in India. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of this Court to a notice dated 04.05.2020 got issued through the petitioner’s counsel to the Foreign Court, objecting to the divorce proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. Though the said notice was received by the Foreign Court on 07.05.2020, it was not taken into consideration and the judgment was delivered on 22.06.2020 solely on the appearance of the respondent/wife and it was erroneously recorded as a judgment by agreement of parties, which is contrary to the record. 8. Learned senior counsel submitted that the suit is not properly valued and the requisite court fee has not been paid, therefore, the Original Suit is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. He further contended that earlier also, the respondent had instituted a suit in O.S.No.84 of 2020 before the Junior Civil Judge, Rajendranagar, with regard to the same immovable properties. Hence, the present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC and finally, he prayed to allow the Revision Petition. 9. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for respondent submitted that the District Court has duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the law, while passing the impugned order and hence, the same is sustainable. Hence, the present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC and finally, he prayed to allow the Revision Petition. 9. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for respondent submitted that the District Court has duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the law, while passing the impugned order and hence, the same is sustainable. He further submitted that as per settled principles of law, if any Foreign Court passes a judgment with the consent of the parties, then the same would be valid in India, even if it is not in accordance with the Indian matrimonial laws. In the instant case, since the petitioner submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court, the judgment passed by the Foreign Court is valid in India. 10. Learned senior counsel further submitted that though the scheduled properties stand in the name of the petitioner, they are not his self-acquired properties and they are either gifted or financed by the father and brothers of the respondent and hence, the respondent has right over the said properties. He further submitted that in the plaint, the respondent has shown the cause of action for filing the suit, and as far as the rejection of the plaint is concerned, the same has to be adjudicated in the main suit and cannot be dealt with in an interlocutory application and he finally, submitted that the Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. C ONSIDERATION 11. From the above factual matrix of the case and the material placed on record, the only point that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition is Whether the impugned order passed by the District Court requires interference or modification by this court and the plaint is liable to be rejected on the grounds raised by the revision petitioner? 12. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the District Court had analyzed in detail the legal framework under Sections 13 and 14 of CPC, to ascertain whether the Foreign Court judgment relied upon by the respondent could be considered at the stage of adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 13. 12. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the District Court had analyzed in detail the legal framework under Sections 13 and 14 of CPC, to ascertain whether the Foreign Court judgment relied upon by the respondent could be considered at the stage of adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 13. Though, the suit is based on the judgment dated 22.06.2020 passed by the Foreign Court, i.e., a Court in non-reciprocating country, the same cannot be brushed aside without considering its compliance with the parameters under Section 13 CPC. That apart, after perusing the material placed on record, i.e., the emails sent by the petitioner to the respondent dated 04.10.2011 and 23.02.2015, it is evident that the petitioner had willingly submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court and was represented by a counsel before the said Court. Further, even prior to the respondent taking any steps, the petitioner had initiated the process of appointing an Attorney for division of the assets, debts and custody of children. 14. Admittedly, the Foreign Court passed the decree of divorce taking into account Parties Joint Stipulation deed dated 18.04.2019 which contains specific terms regarding the division of properties, including the immovable properties situated in India. There is no material placed before this Court to indicate that the said decree was obtained by fraud, or that it violates principles of natural justice or Indian law. 15. In support of their respective contentions, learned counsel for both the parties have relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y. Narasimha Rao vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi , (1991) 3 SCC 451 . In the said judgment, it is held as hereunder: “20. ……The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. In the said judgment, it is held as hereunder: “20. ……The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows: (i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of the relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties." 16. It is the case of the petitioner that the Foreign Court has no jurisdiction nor has he voluntarily submitted himself to its jurisdiction and hence, the judgment passed by the Foreign Court is unenforceable. On the contrary, the record reveals that the petitioner has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court, which is evident from the emails sent by him to the respondent, dated 04.10.2011 and 23.02.2015. Further, the petitioner has even contested the case in the Foreign Court by appointing an Attorney, signed the joint stipulation deed, etc., without any protest. 17. Hence, it is clear that the instant case squarely falls under exception (iii) carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.Narasimha Rao’s case (cited supra). 18. It was only on 09.05.2020, i.e., right after the petitioner reached India and just before passing of the judgment in the OS, that he sent a notice to the Foreign Court stating that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Foreign Court has passed the judgment without jurisdiction. 19. Further, the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a recognized ground under the Hindu Marriage Act and hence, the judgment passed by the Foreign Court should not be given any effect is untenable in view of voluntary submission of the petitioner to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court. 19. Further, the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a recognized ground under the Hindu Marriage Act and hence, the judgment passed by the Foreign Court should not be given any effect is untenable in view of voluntary submission of the petitioner to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court. The suit in question is not for enforcement of the divorce decree granted by Foreign Court, but is a suit for partition, wherein the respondent asserts her rights over certain properties on the basis of mutual agreement and independent title. The reference to the judgment of the Foreign Court is only to reinforce the background of separation and the terms mutually agreed upon by the parties. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the judgment of the Foreign Court is not binding and conclusive is untenable. This Court does not find infirmity or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the District Court and its observation that the present suit is merely to enforce the judgment passed by the Foreign Court only to the extent of division of properties and it has nothing to with regard to the decree of divorce granted by the Foreign Court after the consent of both the parties. 20. Insofar as objection raised by the petitioner that the suit is barred by limitation is concerned, the said issue is mixed question of fact and law and can be conclusively determined only after a full-fledged trial of the suit and therefore, the same is untenable. 21. Insofar as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is not properly valued and the requisite court fee has not been paid, i.e., the respondent instead of valuing the suit under Section 34(1) of the Act, undervalued the same is concerned, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for the States of Telananga and Andhra Pradesh in Pranit Projects (P) Ltd, Hyderabad and others Vs. Goundra Yadaiah and others , 2014(6) ALD 232 , wherein while a similar issue fell for consideration, the Court, by placing reliance on the decisions of Full Bench and Division Bench, held that no pre-trial roving enquiry is required to be conducted by the Court to decide the issue of Court fee on several disputed questions of fact where it requires elaborate evidence with reference to the documents including by testing in cross-examination under Section 137 of the Evidence Act and further, it was made clear that the trial Court shall frame specific issue in this regard on sufficiency or otherwise of the valuation made in the plaint and Court fees paid and answer the same along with other issues in the final adjudication, if required so as to direct for payment of sufficient Court fee. 22. The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. In the case on hand, the respondent’s plea of joint possession of the properties cannot be brushed aside at the threshold and the same needs to be ascertained and decided by the Court by elaborate evidence with reference to the documents including by testing the same in the cross-examination. Thus, this Court opines that the District Court has rightly held that the plea of joint possession asserted by the respondent, being petitioner’s wife till 22.06.2020, cannot be rejected at threshold and has to be adjudicated after full-fledged trial. 23. The trial Court shall frame a specific issue as regards sufficiency of Court fee and answer the said issue along with other issues in the final adjudication, or even otherwise, if it is found during the trial that the respondent is not in joint possession of the properties, the trial Court can direct payment of deficit Court fee. Also, a rider can be added to the effect that the decree drawn up is unexecutable till payment of deficit Court fee. 24. With regard to objection as to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit, it is pertinent to note that the suit involves various properties and third parties, and it is not simply confined to matrimonial reliefs between revision petitioner- husband and the respondent-wife. 24. With regard to objection as to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit, it is pertinent to note that the suit involves various properties and third parties, and it is not simply confined to matrimonial reliefs between revision petitioner- husband and the respondent-wife. Hence, the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, and the bar under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, as rightly held by the District Court. 25. It is also pertinent to note that the cause of action pleaded by the respondent in the plaint is not solely based on the judgment passed by the Foreign Court, but also on her independent rights flowing from alleged gifts and contributions by her father and brothers. Whether such claims merit consideration or not is a matter to be determined after full-fledged trial of the suit. 26. Further, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in P.K.Ananthanarayanan Vs. Bharath and others , 2017 SCC Online Ker 4748 . The said case is not relevant to the present case, as the issue in the case is with respect to the division of the assets and liabilities of a company. 27. In the instant case, in order to establish that the respondent has shown cause of action for filing the suit, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in B and T AG vs. Ministry of Defence , (2024) 5 SCC 358 . 28. In B and T AG ’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “cause of action” means the whole bundle of material facts, and the plaintiff has to prove the same in order to entitle him to succeed in the suit. 29. In the teeth of the aforesaid judgment, it is to be noted that in the instant case, prima facie, the Respondent-wife has put forth the bundle of material facts in the plaint in support of her relief for division of properties and therefore, prima facie, the Respondent established cause of action for filing the suit. 30. 29. In the teeth of the aforesaid judgment, it is to be noted that in the instant case, prima facie, the Respondent-wife has put forth the bundle of material facts in the plaint in support of her relief for division of properties and therefore, prima facie, the Respondent established cause of action for filing the suit. 30. It is pertinent to note that it is well-settled principle of law that the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should not interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of the tribunal or a court except where the finding is perverse in law, in the sense that no reasonable person properly instructed in law could have come to such a finding or there is any misdirection in law or the finding is not based on any material evidence or it has resulted in grave injustice to a party. Except to that limited extent, the High Court has no jurisdiction. 31. In the light of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no legal infirmity, procedural irregularity, or perversity in the reasoning adopted by the District Court. On the contrary, the District Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with the settled principles of law. 32. Consequently, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. C ONCLUSION 33. In view of the above discussion and the legal position, this Court does not find any reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the District Court and thus, the Revision fails, being devoid of any merit. 34. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the trial Court shall adjudicate and dispose of the suit uninfluenced by any observations, if any, made in this order. 35. As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.