ORDER : 1. The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Headquarter Sanganer) in Civil Suit No. 512/2025 titled as Kamla Devi and Ors. vs. Rajnarayan and Ors. whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), has been rejected. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present civil revision petition are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, pleading that Sh. Dulichand (father-in-law of respondent No. 1 and paternal grandfather of respondent Nos. 2 to 4) obtained a Patta dated 09.05.1965 from the Gram Panchayat, Goner, for land situated at 52, Dukaano Ke Peeche, Dus Ki Dhaani, Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, measuring 44 x 39 feet (totaling 191 square yards). 3. It was stated in the plaint that after the death of Sh. Dhulichand, the rightful owners of the disputed plot of land, were the sons, i.e., Jagdish and Prahlad, who, being first-class heirs, were vested with equal 1/2 shares in the disputed plot. Thereafter, the two sons, i.e., Jagdish and Prahlad, divided the disputed plot into two halves and enjoyed peaceful possession thereof. 4. The plaintiffs/respondents also claimed possession thereof and asserted that the suit property is an ancestral property belonging to the plaintiffs/respondents and the deceased-Ramesh. It was further pleaded that after the death of Jagdish, the other son, i.e., Prahlad sold his half of the disputed plot to the petitioner (defendant No.1) and the legal heirs of Jagdish (the plaintiffs/respondents and the deceased-Ramesh) held a 1/5th share in the said property. It was further pleaded that Ramesh sold his 1/5th share to the petitioner (defendant No. 1), bordering the part he had already purchased. 5. It was further pleaded that the petitioner (defendant No.1) regularly attempted to encroach upon the plaintiffs/respondents' remaining share in the disputed property and threatened to dispossess them thereof, and prayed for a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction. 6. 5. It was further pleaded that the petitioner (defendant No.1) regularly attempted to encroach upon the plaintiffs/respondents' remaining share in the disputed property and threatened to dispossess them thereof, and prayed for a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction. 6. Upon service of notice to the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 on 09.12.2025, raising various objections inter alia that: the suit was barred by limitation, the plaintiffs/respondents had no locus standi, there was a non-joinder of necessary parties, there was a discrepancy in the description of the property, the suit is not maintainable being a simplicitor suit for injunction which neither seeks a declaration nor a partition of the undivided suit property and that the suit was filed without any cause of action without there being any proof of ownership of the disputed property. 7. The application was contested by the respondents/plaintiffs by filing a detailed reply dated 22.12.2025, wherein they refuted the petitioner's averments and claims, and asserted the averments made in the plaint, stating that the plaint discloses valid cause of action and cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It was also narrated in the reply to the said application that: the learned Trial Court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear the suit, the allegation leveled viz non-joinder of necessary parties is fallacious as the plaintiffs/respondents have impleaded the parties against which effective and complete relief can be granted, there was a bona fide cause of action disclosed in the plaint, i.e., the threat of the petitioner/defendant No.1 dispossessing the plaintiffs/respondents off their rightful property, the plaintiffs/respondents have the requisite locus standi as the disputed property is their ancestral property. 8. After hearing the arguments of both parties, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 03.01.2026, dismissed the petitioner's/defendant No. 1 application, while observing that, when considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must confine itself to the averments made in the plaint, and not venture beyond the plaint, and that the grounds of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC are not attracted in the instant case. 9. Being aggrieved of which, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition. 10. 9. Being aggrieved of which, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 submits that the learned Trial Court has seriously erred in passing the impugned order as the averments made in the plaint do not disclose any cause of action, and the suit is manifestly vexatious, and has been filed merely to harass the petitioner, as the plaint seeks to institute a simplicitor suit for injunction without seeking any relief for declaration or partition of the suit property. 11. In order to buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 relied upon the judgments in the matters of T. Arivandandam vs. T. V. Satyapal and Another , (1977) 4 SCC 467 and Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Others, (2008) 4 SCC 594 . 12. Heard the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 13. It is apt to reproduce the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, which reads as under: "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 from 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." 14. From a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 03.01.2026, it is evident that that the learned Trial Court, after carefully examining the plaint and considering the petitioner's objections that the suit is not maintainable, rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The learned Trial Court also considered the arguments raised by the petitioner regarding the suit being a simplicitor suit without any prayer for declaration or partition, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the suit being vexatious, filed merely to harass the petitioner; and has rightly held that none of these grounds fall within the scope/ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, more particularly Clause (a) and (d), as there is a valid cause of action made out in the plaint and the statements made in the plaint cannot be termed to be barred by any law. 15. Moreover, while considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the learned Trial Court in the impugned order has rightly held that the pleas raised by the petitioner are mixed questions of fact and law, which cannot be considered at the stage of hearing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, as the same would amount to conducting a 'Mini Trial', reliance was also rightly placed by the learned Trial Court on the judgment of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Sharda Devi Vs. Iqbal Singh & Ors. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 105/2013. 16. As far as the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the same are clearly distinguishable on facts. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 17. It is trite law that, while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, only the averments of the plaint are required to be examined, and from a bare perusal of the plaint, it is abundantly clear that the plaint discloses a valid cause of action and from the statements made therein, the present suit cannot be termed to be barred by any law. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the present case does not attract the grounds enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, more particularly Clause (a) and (d). 18. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the present case does not attract the grounds enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, more particularly Clause (a) and (d). 18. Even otherwise, the petitioner is always at liberty to make his submissions in the written statement, which will be duly considered by the learned Trial Court during the course of the trial. 19. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned award dated 03.01.2026 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or any legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 20. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 21. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.