IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1018 of 2007 Meera Devi & Anr Versus Parmeshwar Prasad ----------- 4. 17.11.2011 No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the prayer of defendants/petitioners for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has been rejected. The suit has been filed for partition. The Plaintiff has claimed 1/3 shares in the suit property mentioned in schedule of the plaint by filing the suit for partition. However, the defendant has filed the petition for rejection of the plaint on the ground that there is no unity of tile or jointness of possession between the parties with regard to the suit property. Further, it has also been stated in the petition that the plaint is liable to be rejected because the plaintiff has deliberately and with dishonest intention not included the property mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ of the petition as joint family property. Mainly on these grounds, it has been asserted by the defendants that there is no cause of action for the suit and the plaint is fit to be rejected. The learned Court below after hearing the parties 2 and considering the materials on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the objection raised by the defendants in their petition can be adjudicated only at the trial on the basis of evidence. From the perusal of the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the defendants-petitioners (Annexcure-3 to the revision application) it does not appear that the grounds mentioned therein are sufficient for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and the learned Court below has rightly rejected the petition in view of the well-settled principles in this regard. There is thus no merit in this revision application which is accordingly dismissed. Saif/- (V. Nath, J.)