Civil Writ No.33/2008 Seth Ramgopal Goverdhan Dass Mohta Charitable trust, Bikaner & ors vs. Anand Kumar Mohta & Ors. Order dt.27/8/2008 1/2 S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.33/2008 DATE OF ORDER : 27/8/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.P.M.Vyas, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajeev Purohit, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision petition is directed against the order dt.14/12/2007, whereby, learned trial court rejected the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 in a suit for injunction filed by plaintiffs respondents. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action inasmuch as in the plaint in para no.18 the plaintiffs had disclosed that cause of action arose to them on 20/8/2007 when the defendants trustees of the said public trust refused to accept their request for not transferring the property of the trust in question, whereas, in para no.11 of the plaint it is stated that they had filed application to the same effect before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Bikaner on 29/6/2007, though this date is not disclosed in para 11. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner defendants submits that cause of Civil Writ No.33/2008 Seth Ramgopal Goverdhan Dass Mohta Charitable trust, Bikaner & ors vs. Anand Kumar Mohta & Ors. Order dt.27/8/2008 2/2 action arose to the plaintiffs on 29/6/2007 and not on 20/8/2007. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by learned trial court. It may be a matter of defence for the petitioner defendants to establish the same. However, it cannot be said that bare reading of the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. If there is any inconsistency, it may be for different reason and on different context which the plaintiff is required to establish before the trial court. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.53 baweja/-