IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No. 40 of 2008 Harish Kumar and another .……… Revisionists/Petitioners Versus Swami Sarveshwar Muni, Trustee and President Shri Swami Bhumanand Trust (Udasin Ashram) Gopal Mandir Compound, Uttarkashi and another ……… Respondents Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate for the revisionists/petitioners. JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. The learned Court below has rightly rejected the petitioners’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. because the application was misconceived as well as it was frivolous and non-maintainable. A bare look at the plaint does convince me that no part of Rule 11 of Order 7 C.P.C. was attracted in this case because the plaint did not at all deserve to be rejected in terms of this provision of law. Since the plaint did disclose a cause of action, it was properly valued as well as no part of the plaint suggested that the suit was barred by any law. Petition is dismissed in limine. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 29.7.2008 Avneet