https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299666 At the stage of rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments and undisputed documents forming part of the plaint, and cannot decide disputed questions about the legality of a foundational permission under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act. Where the validity of the permission raises mixed questions of law and fact, including notice, hearing, and challengeability, those matters must be raised in the written statement and tried in accordance with law rather than at the threshold. The plaint was therefore not liable to rejection merely because that permission was disputed, and the revision succeeded. en-us Mon, 02 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Dec 2021 17:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299666 At the stage of rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments and undisputed documents forming part of the plaint, and cannot decide disputed questions about the legality of a foundational permission under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act. Where the validity of the permission raises mixed questions of law and fact, including notice, hearing, and challengeability, those matters must be raised in the written statement and tried in accordance with law rather than at the threshold. The plaint was therefore not liable to rejection merely because that permission was disputed, and the revision succeeded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299666