DWARKA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision petition, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court was in error in refusing to reject the plaint under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11. C. P. C.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed that in para 2 of the plaint the plaintiff had stated that the land in dispute belonged to him and that he had sub-divided a large chunk of land purchased by him with the permission of the Urban Improvement Trust. Jodhpur and sold portions of such land as separate plots to various persons. According to the plaintiff, the land in dispute, which remained after sale of plots, belonged to him. Hence a suit for possession and mesne profits was filed by him against the defendant on the alleged ground that he has made unlawful encroachment upon the land in dispute.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant petitioner urges that the plaint should not be read in a formal manner but it should be read along with the law on the subject and that a perusal of the provisions of the Rajas-than Urban Areas (Sub-Division, Reconstitution and Improvement of Plots) Rules, 1975 would make it clear that the open spaces left after sub-division vested