IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9627 of 2011 Phoolena Singh & Anr Versus Sri Niwas Singh ----------- 03. 30.06.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 30.04.2011 passed by Sub Judge VII, Biharsharif in Title Suit No.71 of 2010 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the petitioner had advanced a loan of Rs.3,10,000 to the plaintiff-respondent and he returned Rs.1,50,000 to the petitioner out of the said loan advanced to him but playing fraud, he has filed the present suit for specific performance of alleged contract. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff has not disclosed as to why the defendant could have agreed to sell such a huge property to the plaintiff- respondent when he is a Government servant. So far the submissions of the learned counsel is concerned, all these questions are questions of fact and that cannot be examined while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint. I, therefore, find that the learned Court below 2 has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. In such circumstances, in supervisory jurisdiction, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)