P.T. Raman Nayar, J.

1. I think the suit falls clearly within O.7 R.11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code and that, in declining to reject the plaint under that provision and deciding to proceed with the trial, requiring the defendants to file written statements, the court below exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law in the sense in which that term is used in S.115(a) of the Code.

2. The suit, as disclosed from a reading of the plaint, is against the State of Kerala and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam in respect of the sale of a land with the buildings thereon under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and in respect of an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer to his subordinates to effect delivery in pursuance of that sale. The plaint contains no recital as required by S.80 of the Code that the notice required by that section had been effected, and, the plaintiff has no case that such notice was, in fact, issued. True the relief claimed is only an injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff. But, as pointed out by the Privy Council in Bhagchand v. Secretary of State (AIR 1927 Privy Council page 176 at pages 184 and 185), the wor