ORDER :

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Heard Shri S.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate for the revisionists.

2. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 08.04.2019, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the revisionist has been rejected by the trial Court.

3. The suit wherefrom this revision arises is one for permanent injunction filed by the opposite parties.

4. In the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it was averred that the plaint was liable to be rejected as it disclosed no cause of action. The plaintiff was not recorded over the property regarding which injunction has been sought. A part of the property in question had been transferred in favour of the defendant no. 8, who was also mutated in pursuance thereof. No relief could be granted to the plaintiff on account of pendency of a Writ Petition No. 2671 of 1980 pending before the High Court, which arose from a suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff no. 1, a Trust, through its Secretary, but it has not been stated in the plaint as to how the Secretary had a right to file the suit. The plaintiff no. 2