[2025:RJ-JP:26509] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 90/2025 All India Bank Of Baroda, Officers Union Principal Office 110, Bhartendu Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur-302012 Through Its Secretary Lokesh Mishra S/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder Mishra, Aged 65 Years R/o 110, Bhartendu Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur 302012. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Bank Of Baroda Officers Union, Central And Regd. Office 37/1, Car Street, Halasuru, Bengaluru 560008 Through Appropriate Authority. 2. All India Bank Of Baroda Officers Union, Principal Office 110, Bhartendu Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur 302012 Through Appropriate Authority. 3. Neeraj Srivastava, So-Called President, All India Bank Of Baroda Officers Union Principal Office 110, Bhartendu Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur 302012. 4. K. Srinivasarao, Socalled General Secretary, All India Bank Of Baroda Officers Union Principal Office 110, Bhartendu Nagar, Khatipura Jaipur 302012. 5. Vipin Kumar Verma, So Called Treasurer, All India Bank Of Baroda Officers Union Principal Office 110, Bhartendu Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur 302012. 6. Bank Of Baorda, Corporate Office C 26, G Block. Bandra Krula Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Through Appropriate Authority. 7. All India Bank Officer Association, Central Office, 2Nd Floor, 109/10, Angappa Naiken Street, Chennai 600001Through General Secretary. 8. Anil Kumar V, Vice Chairman, I, All India Bank Officers Association, Central Office- Second Floor, 109/10, Angappa Naiken Street, Chennai 600001, 9. Narendra Singh, Vice Chairman-Ii, All India Bank Officers Association, Central Office-Second Floor, 109/10, Angappa Naiken Street, Chennai 600001, 10. A.n.suresh, President, All India Bank Officers Association, Central Office-Second Floor, 109/10, Angappa Naiken [2025:RJ-JP:26509] (2 of 4) [CR-90/2025] Street, Chennai 600001. 11. S. Nagarajan, General Secretary, All India Bank Officers Association, Central Office-Second Floor, 109/10, Angappa Naiken Street, Chennai 600001. 12. Jawahar R. Treasurer, All India Bank Officers Association, Central Office-Second Floor 109/10, Angappa Naiken Street, Chennai 600001. 13. Assistant/deputy Labour Commissioner, Office-Division-4, Karmik Bhawan, Bannrgatta Road, Bengaluru. 14. State Of Karnataka, Through Labour Secretary, Labour Department, Secretariat, Bengaluru(Karnataka). 15. Registrar Of Trade Unions, 1923, And Additional Labour Commissioner (I.r.) Head Office, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 16. Govt. Of Rajasthan/rajasthan Rajya Through Labour Secretary/, Labour Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 18 /07/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant No.1’) against the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Civil Suit No.4/2024, whereby the application filed by the defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in which defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 [2025:RJ-JP:26509] (3 of 4) [CR-90/2025] CPC before the trial court but trial court vide order dated 05.02.2025 dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 also submits that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is without any cause of action. It had not filed any document with the plaint. Each page of the plaint is not bearing the signature of the plaintiff. Two powers were annexed with the plaint in which one is bearing the signature of the party and did not bear the ticket. So, plaint filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed but trial court committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.1. So, order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the trial court be set aside and plaint be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and submits that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court had to see the averments made in the plaint and para 5, 7, 9 and 14 of the plaint deal with the cause of action. Objection raised by the defendant No.1 is a mixed question of law and fact. That cannot be decided by invoking the provision of order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1. So, present petition filed by the defendant No.1 be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. While deciding the application filed by the defendant No.1, trial court observed that the objection raised by the defendant No.1 is a mixed question of law and fact and would be decided [2025:RJ-JP:26509] (4 of 4) [CR-90/2025] after framing the preliminary issue. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.1, So, the present petition filed by the defendant No.1 being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin/104