THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.965 of 2009 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.103 of 2008 against the petitioners in the Court of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for the relief of cancellation of the trust deed, dated 02.01.2008, and for ancillary reliefs. The petitioners are said to be trustees under the said document. On receipt of summons in the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.245 of 2008 under Rule 11 of Order 7 C.P.C. with a prayer to reject the plaint. They pleaded that the respondents have no locus standi to file the suit, being an unregistered society; the permission as required under Section 92 C.P.C. was not obtained; and that the dispute which is elaborated in the plaint would constitute, at the best, the subject matter of an O.P. under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act. The respondents opposed the application. Through its order, dated 04.12.2008, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Kalyana Ramakrishna, the learned counsel for the respondents. The suit filed by the respondents was the one for cancellation of the trust deed, dated 02.01.2008. The petitioners wanted the plaint to be rejected by pleading three grounds mentioned above. The gist of the contention advanced by them is that there exists a society to undertake the affairs of the community and not being a registered society, the first respondent is not entitled to institute the suit. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners filed O.S.No.530 of 2008 in the Court of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction. The rejection of plaint is an extraordinary event that results in denial of relief to the plaintiff without undertaking the trial. The circumstances under which a plaint can be rejected are very limited and are provided for under Rule 11 of Order 7 C.P.C. None of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners would fit into the clauses of Rule 11 of Order 7 C.P.C. At the most, they can constitute the subject matter of independent issues, which, in turn, need to be decided after recording the evidence. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. To avoid possibility of different views being expressed on the same dispute or facets thereof, it is felt that both the suits referred to above are to be heard together. The learned counsel for the parties have readily agreed for such a suggestion. Hence, it is directed that O.S.No.103 of 2008 pending in the Court of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad shall stand transferred to the Court of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and on such transfer, it shall be heard along with O.S.No.530 of 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.08.2009 kdl