1 S. B. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.12/2007 IN S. B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.135/2007 (Shree Baba Ramdev Vikas Samiti v. Shri Sainik Kshetriya Mali Samaj and Others) DATE OF ORDER :::: 30-05-2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.S.P.Sharma, for Petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in second para of Page 2, in last, it is mentioned “it is admitted case of the defendants that the suit has been filed to enforce a right on behalf of the Public Trust and the Public Trust is not a registered one under the Act of 1959”. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by this, an impression is created that the defendants have admitted that the plaintiff is a Registered Trust or constituting a Public Trust. But in fact the defendants denied the facts which were alleged by the plaintiffs in their plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Sharad Kumar v. Raghuveer Singh & Another, 2006 (2) CDR 2 1255 (Raj.), the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the language used as quoted above in the impugned order of this Court dated 18th May, 2007, has not properly been understood. From the entire judgment, it is clear that this Court has decided only legal issue whether the suit by unregistered Public trust in some circumstances can be filed in Civil Court or not ? Since the issue was limited, therefore, the fact which has not been admitted by the rival parties, cannot be treated to be admitted fact. But looking to the apprehension of the petitioner, it will be appropriate to make it clear that the defendants sought rejection of the plaint of the plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and, therefore, the defendant submitted that as per the plaintiff's own case, the plaint was liable to be rejected. In view of the above, it is made clear that no fact which has not been admitted by the petitioner in the pleadings before the court below, be treated to be admitted because of the fact mentioned in the order of this Court dated 18th May, 2007. The review application is, therefore, disposed of, with the above observations. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. scd.