CR 106/09 Ramswaroop and others Vs. Thakurji Shri Kalyanji Maharaj & Anr. (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R In S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.106/2009 Ramswaroop and others Vs. Thakurji Shri Kalyanji Maharaj and another Date Of Order :: 5th October, 2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. J.P. Goyal, for petitioner. ........... By the Court :- Heard learned counsel for petitioner-defendant on the point of admission of this civil revision petition filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) against the order dated 3/3/2009 passed by District Judge, Dausa whereby the application filed by the petitioner- defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Rajkumar alleged Sevayat was not competent to file the suit on behalf of Thakurji Shri Kalyanji Maharaj known as Kalali Temple. It was then submitted that disputed properties were already declared personal properties of defendant by the competent authority under section 23(2) of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act, 1952 (in short the Act of 1952) and the same cannot be challenged in any civil court, as such the suit was barred by section 46 of the Act of CR 106/09 Ramswaroop and others Vs. Thakurji Shri Kalyanji Maharaj & Anr. (2) 1952 and this fact has not properly been considered by the trial court while deciding the application. 3. I have considered the above submissions in the light of the impugned order. So far objection raised in the application with regard to competency of Sevayat Rajkumar to file suit on behalf of Thakurji Shri Kalyanji Maharaj is concerned, it cannot be taken to be a ground of rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and so far non-maintainability of the suit on account of bar by any law is concerned, it is true that suit can be rejected by the court if such suit appears to be barred by any law from the statement of the plaint as provided under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC but facts highlighted by the defendant cannot be considered for rejection of the plaint under such provision if such bar of law does not appear from the statement of the plaint. The trial court has rightly considered and rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC which does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, there is not merit in this civil revision petition. 4. Consequently, this revision along with stay application is dismissed at the admission stage. However, the trial court is directed to decide the plea of jurisdiction raised by the defendant-petitioner in the written statement as preliminary issue in accordance to law. (J.R. Goyal),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D1