IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.451 of 2009 M/S GAUTAM BUDHA HOSPITAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT.LTD., KACHHARI ROAD, P.O.-BIHARSHARIFF, P.S.-BIHAR, DISTRICT-NALANDA THROGH ITS DIRECTOR DR. RAJESHWAR PRASAD SINHA AT SUMITRA SADAN, MOHALLA BARI PAHARI, P.O.&P.S.- SOHSARAI, TOWN-BIHAR SHARIF, DISTRICT-NALANDA AT PRESENT 345, OLD BED FORD ROAD, LUTON BEDS LU78L UNITED KINGDOM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER CUM POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, PANKAJ KUMAR SINHA @ PNAKAJ SINGH. …………………DEFENDANT/PETITIONER. Versus SMT.SHANTI SINHA, W/O DR. INDRAJEET PRASAD SINHA, C/O RAJ CLINIC, RANCHI ROAD, P.O.& P.S.&TOWN BIHAR SHARIF, P.S.-LAHERI, DISTRICT-NALANDA. …………………PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- 2 23.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant has filed this revision application challenging the order dated 21.2.2009 passed by the learned trial court in eviction suit no. 1 of 2006 by which the petition of the defendant petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. praying for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and same was vexatious and therefore, learned trial court was legally bound to reject the plaint in exercise of the powers under Order VII Rule 11. From the plaint annexed with the application as Annexure-1, it appears that the plaintiff has claimed breach of terms of 2 agreement of the lease as also personal necessity. Learned court below has rightly found that the question of breach of terms of lease and of personal necessity are mixed question of law and fact and therefore, it was not a fit case in which in exercise of the powers under Order VII Rule 11, the plaint was liable to be rejected. This court does not find any illegally or material irregularity in the order, and therefore, does not find any merit in the revision application and the application is accordingly dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)