Civil Revision No.3779 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3779 of 2006 Date of Decision:04.08.2009 Devinder Kumar and others .....Petitioners versus (Alleged) Dera Baba Bhuman Shah and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 11. Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate, for respondent Nos.12 to 26. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) Some of the defendants have approached this Court by way of present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved against the order dated 11.02.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and that the appropriate court fee had not been affixed, was partly declined by the trial Court. The trial Court while declining the former prayer of the petitioners regarding cause of action, however, directed the plaintiff- Civil Revision No.3779 of 2006 2 respondents to affix the appropriate court fee as per Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the trial Court was remiss in declining the prayer of the defendants-petitioners to the effect that the plaint should be rejected for non-disclosure of the cause of action. He referred to the contents of the plaint as well as the submissions made before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order as well as record of the case. The trial Court in para 7 of its order while declining the prayer of the defendants-petitioners for rejection of the plaint on the basis of non- disclosure of cause of action had noticed that Fard Badar was on the file which proved that there was some cause of action available to the plaintiff to file the suit. Moreover, the trial Court shall proceed after framing proper issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and a specific issue can be framed/claimed in respect of the plea of the defendants before the trial Court at the time of framing of issues. No ground for interference by this Court with the impugned order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, being devoid of any merit, the present revision petition is dismissed. August 04, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE