IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No. 12 of 2010 Sabhanand Mishra and others. … Revisionists. Versus Nand Lal Disciple of Swami Shukhanand Giri Ji Maharaj and another. … Respondents. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, learned counsel for the revisionists. Date March 01, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this revision the revisionists have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 27-4-2010 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/Additional District Judge, Rishikesh (Dehradun) whereby the application under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the premises in question on the basis of Benami transaction. A perusal of the record shows that the learned trial court after the parties has held that the suit is not barred by the provision of Section 4 of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, 1988 and has also held that the property was inherited by Swami Shukhanand Giri as successor. On this ground the learned J.S.C.C. has held that the revisionists may argue this point at the final stage on merit. It has also been observed that in the case at hand, the relationship of landlord and tenant has to be seen. The application of the revisionists was rejected at preliminary stage. Since the opportunity to argue on the point concerned is open to the revisionists, as observed by the learned trial court, no prejudice is caused to them. I find no perversity or manifest error of law in the order impugned. The revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright. The revision is dismissed. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP