1 9 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.104/2009. Dharma Ram & Ors. Vs. Mamraj & Ors. Date of Order :: 2nd March 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Vijay Jain, for the petitioners. ..... BY THE COURT: Though listed in Court No.10, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a mention stating urgency. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the order impugned, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the order dated 12.02.2009 as passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sri Dungargarh in Civil Original Suit No. 52/1999 rejecting an application moved by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint essentially on the ground that the plaintiffs have no cause of action in relation to the land in question. It is noticed from the order impugned that the suit has been filed in the representative capacity by the plaintiffs for declaration and perpetual injunction while claiming the land in question to be public property dedicated for public use that was earlier recorded as Johad-Paitan and gair-mumkin 2 gochar. The learned Trial Court has pointed out that the question as to whether land in question was a public property or remained a private property would only be determined after evidence and has observed that at the present stage, it could not be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. From the observations as made in the impugned order, it does appear that it is an old suit filed way back in the year 1999 and was pending at plaintiffs' evidence stage when such an application seeking rejection of the plaint came to be moved by the petitioners-defendants. The application as moved by the petitioners has been rejected by the learned Trial Court after due consideration of the record; and this Court is satisfied that the impugned order does not suffer any jurisdictional error. The revision petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/