Judgment Dwarka Prasad, J.-In this revision petition, the only question which arises is with regard to the scope of Clause (a) of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, 2 Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, so far as it is relevant for the present case, reads as under:-“Order 7. Rule 11:-Rejection of plaint --The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : --

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) wherethe relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff , on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff , on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears fromthe statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

3. Theargument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the question as to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not for the purposes of Clause (a) of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC should be decided on the face of the averments made in the plaint. On the other hand the argument of the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner is that not only the plaint but the documents filed along with the plaint should be looked into to determine the question as to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not. The learned District Judge held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and rejected the plaintiffs application filed under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter called “the Act”). Under the aforesaid provision, a person having interest in a public trust or otherwise, may apply to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department for permission to apply to the Court for directions and if such an application is made, then the Court shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 40 of the Act. It is not in dispute in the present case that the petitioner Bhagwandas submitted on application before the Asst. Commissioner seeking permission under Section 38 of the Act and that by the order dated 24-11-1981 the Assistant Commissioner granted permission directing Bhagwandas to apply to the Court for such directions, as the Court may give according to Section 40. Bhagwandas submitted an application on 4-12-1981 before the learned District Judge. The opposite party objected to the maintainability of the application filed by Bhagwandas under Section 38 of the Act on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action. It was urged on behalf of the opposite party that under Section 38 the Assistant Commissioner could give permission or direction to a person to file an application before the Court only after giving the working trustees an opportunity of being heard and as it did not appear from the face of the application as well as from the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan that any such opportunity was given to the opposite party of being heard, the permission given by the Assistant Commissioner to Bhagwandas by his order dated 24-11-1981 was invalid or void and no application could be maintained by Bhagwandas before the learned District Judge, on the basis of such an invalid permission given by the Assistant Commissioner.

4. Now, what the learned Counsel for the opposite party urges is that while looking into the averments made in the plaint, for the purpose of determining the question whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not, the document, namely, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 24-11-1981 should also be looked into. Not only that the said document should be looked into, but it is further argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that at the stage of deciding whether the plaint (application under Section 38 of the Act filed before the learned District Judge) discloses a cause of action or not, the Court should proceed to decide the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document