JUDGMENT S.D. AgarwaIa, J. - This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of Original Suit No. 113 of 1983 filed by Respondent Nos. 7 to 127, who are advocates practising in the Courts at Basti. The suit has been filed against the Petitioners, inter alia, for a relief of declaration that the entire moveable property of the Petitioners and the money deposited In the banks in the name of the Petitioner belonged to the residents and the entire citizens of the municipal area, Basti, and that the utilisation of the property is for illegal, irregular and unsocial purposes. A further relief has been sought in the said plaint to the effect that the Petitioners be restrained from making anv constructions, either for the benefit of the petiiioners or for imparting Arabic language and that the moveable and immovable properties received in future by the Petitioners be not spent. 2. Darul Ulum Islamia, Petitioner No. 1, is a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Petitioner No. 2 is the President of the Petitioner No. 1 Society Petitioner No. 3 is the Secretary, Petitioner No. 4 is the Treasurer and Petitioner Nos. 5 to 11 are the members of the Managing Committee of the said Society. 3. The suit is based on the allegations, inter alia, that about three years back, Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 have received unlimited money in crores from the Arab countries in the form of petio dollars. With the said money, the Petitioners purchased land in village Bhuwar Niranjanpur in the out-skirts of the Basti municipality and, thereafter, they further purchased the properties in the city of Basti. It was further alleged that the Petitioners were constructing a building in the city of Basti and that they want to use the said building for providing dwelling for about 4000 people on the pretext of imparting religious education in Aiabic language in the name of Darul Ulum Islamia and thai the establishment of Darul Ulum Islamia is a nuisance for the peace loving citizens of the Basti municpal area. The allegations have further been made as to how the establishment of the institution would result in creating nuisance. 4. The suit has been alleged to have been instituted for and on behalf of the benefit of the entire citizens residing in the Basti municipal area. The allegations have further been made as to how the establishment of the institution would result in creating nuisance. 4. The suit has been alleged to have been instituted for and on behalf of the benefit of the entire citizens residing in the Basti municipal area. This suit was filed on 7th October, 1983. On the same day, an application was made under Order I Rule 8,Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The Civil Judge, Basti. allowed the application on 7th October, 1983, itself. On that ery day, an injunction application was also movea seeking an in unction restraining the Petitioners from making any construction, as proposed by them, and further restraining the Petitioners from withdrawing money from the banks in which the money had been deposited in their names. So far as the constructions are concerned, the injunction was sought, both in respect of the properties, situate in the city of Basti, asvvell as on the out-skirts of Basti. 6. The trial court on 7th October, 1983, issued an ex paste ad interim injunction that no further constructions be made till 7th November, 1983. It was further directed that the banks shall not permit withdrawal of the money by the Petitioner No. 1 unless the approval is taken from the Court. The Court further directed that on 8th November, 1983, the application for injunction may be listed for hearing. 7. On 13th October, 1983, the Petitioners filed objections to the injunction application. It was alleged in reply that the Petitioner No. 1 is an educational institution, like any other education institution of the minorities running possible throughout the country and that it had the fundamental right to enioy the guarantcss laid dove by Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. It was further stated that not more than 202 minor students ranging from the age of 6 to 16 years and teachers, including the staff, not exceeding 22 in number, are already there with the Petitioner No. 1 and that the student are residing in hostels already constructed by them. It was also stated that the Petitioners have complied with the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act No. of 49 of 1976) and that the building had been raised after the site plan was duly sanctioned by the Municipal Board under the U. P. Municipalities vet. 8. It was also stated that the Petitioners have complied with the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act No. of 49 of 1976) and that the building had been raised after the site plan was duly sanctioned by the Municipal Board under the U. P. Municipalities vet. 8. On 13th October, 1983, an application was made by the Petitioners that the interim injunction matter may be heard ant disposed of within a week, as it is causing undue hardship. On that application, the Court passed an order on 19th October, 1983, reacting the same on the ground that since the injunction application is directed against all the Defendants, therefore. application be fed Defendants to decide the injunction application before 7th November, 1983 was misconceived. 9. On 9th November, 1983, the date fixed for disposal of the in unction application, two applications were moved by the Plaintiff Respondents for a direction that the Petitioners should disclose by an affidavit as to how much funds were received by them from the foreign countries for establishing the Darul Ulum Islamia. The details of the amounts deposited in ths various banks and a further prayer was made that the injunction application may be disposed of after the details had been furnished by the Petitioners. Both these applications were rejected by the trial court on 10th November, 1983, and the Court thereafter fixed 14th November, 1983, for hearing of the injunction application. 10. It appears that on 14th November, 1983, the matter could not be taken up, meanwhile the Plaintiff Respondents had filed a Revision No. 328 of 1983 in the court of the District Judge, Basti. This revision came up for admission before the District Judge. The revision was admitted on 18th November, 1983. It is necessary to quote the order passed on 18th November, 1983, by the District Judge. It is as under: 18-11-83. Sri Virendra Nath and Sri Dharam Raj Chaudhary appear for the Plaintiff revisionists and Sri Mohd. Rafiq Khan, Sri Chandrika Prasad and Sri M.U. Siddiqui, Advocates, appear for the O.P. Defendants. A large number of advocates are present in the court room some of whom also happen be the puff. revisionist. It is as under: 18-11-83. Sri Virendra Nath and Sri Dharam Raj Chaudhary appear for the Plaintiff revisionists and Sri Mohd. Rafiq Khan, Sri Chandrika Prasad and Sri M.U. Siddiqui, Advocates, appear for the O.P. Defendants. A large number of advocates are present in the court room some of whom also happen be the puff. revisionist. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and the matter appears to be quite debatable and a perusal of tire imputed order dated 10.11.83, shows that it is a fit case for admission. Accordingly, the revision is hereby admitted, Let it be entered in the register of revisions, and then transfer it to the Yth Addl. District Judge for disposal. 11. From the order dated 18th November, 1983, it does appear that since the Plaintiff Respondents were about 100 advocates and they were present in Court, the atmosphere in the Court of the District Judge was fully surcharged. On that very day, the Plaintiff Respondents, who were the revisionists, moved an application for stay of the proceedings in the suit. The District Judge directed that the proceedings in the suit shall remain stayed and fixed a date for appearance of the parties. 12. The result of the stay order was that the injunction against the Petitioners was operating and, at the same time, further proceedings in the suit were stayed. Since the Petitioners could not succeed in getting the stay order vacated, they filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court for quashing the injunction order dated 7th October, 1983, as well as the order of the uistrici Judge Maying the proceedings and they further sought for quashing of the proceeding of the suit. They also sought for a writ of prohibition restraining the Civil Judge, Basti, from proceeding with the suit. 13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 14. The main question raised by Sri S.S. Bhatnagar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, is that the relief claimed in the suit cannot possibly be granted by the Court. Such a suit is not maintainable in law. 13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 14. The main question raised by Sri S.S. Bhatnagar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, is that the relief claimed in the suit cannot possibly be granted by the Court. Such a suit is not maintainable in law. It is an abuse of the process of the Court and also directed against the provisions of the Constitution and, as such the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in quashing the proceedings in the suit and prohibiting the trial court from continuing the suit which has resulted in serious prejudice and irreparable injury to the Petitioners. 15. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further challenged the injunction order dated 7th October, 1983 and has urged that the interim injunction granted by the court below is manifestly erroneous as the injunction could not have been granted on the grounds mentioned in the order. 16. I will deal with the last question in regard to the validity of the injunction order first. 17. The injunction order dated 7th October, 1983 is primarily based on two grounds, firstly on the ground that the plan of the Petitioner had not been sanctioned by the Municipal Board. Secondly, the court was prima facie of the view that since an affidavit has been filed that the money has been received for the constructions from Arab countries. Basing its order on these grounds an injunction was firstly issued restraining the Petitioner from making further construction and the Banks in which money had been deposited were further directed not to pay the money to the Petitioners. 18. In paragraph 56(a) of the petition it has been categorically stated that the constructions are being made on the basis of a sanctioned plan of the Municipal Board dated 20th October, 1982 and 20th June, 1983, paper Nos. 73C and 74C on record. In paragraph 155 of the counter affidavit this fact has not been categorically denied. In the circumstances, it is clear . that the Petitioners did have a sanctioned plan in their favour on the basis of which the constructions were being made. 19. 73C and 74C on record. In paragraph 155 of the counter affidavit this fact has not been categorically denied. In the circumstances, it is clear . that the Petitioners did have a sanctioned plan in their favour on the basis of which the constructions were being made. 19. In so far as the second ground is concerned, in paragraph y of the petition, it has been categorically stated that the Petitioner No. I Society has received contributions from and through the citizens of India living abroad. It has been further stated that all the foreign contributions have been received through the Reserve Bank of India and that the Petitioners have complied with the provisions of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Rules framed there under. In the counter affidavit, paragraphs 11 and 12, it has only been stated in reply that it is inconceivable that the persons living in Basti can collect crores of rupees within a short span of time by obtaining legal donation and that the Petitioners are only trying to take the cover of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976. In paragraph 12 it has been further stated that the Petitioners have not complied with the provisions of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 or the Rules framed there under. From a reading of paragraphs 11 and 12 it is clear that it is not the case of the Plaintiffs-Respondents that the Petitioners have not taken recourse to the provisions of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 or the Rules framed there under but their case is that there is a violation of the Act and the Rules. 20. The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, (Act No. 49 of 1976), hereinafter referred to as the Act was promulgated by the Parliament to regulate the acceptance and utilization of foreign contributions or foreign hospitality by crtin persons or association with a view to ensure that the Parliamentary institution, political association and academic and other voluntary organisations as well as individuals working in the important areas of national life may function in a manner consistent with the values of a sovereign democratic republic, or the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The ' foreign contribution ' has been defined u/s 2(c) of the Act to include any donation, delivery or transfer made by any foreign source of any currency, whether Indian or foreign. The ' foreign contribution ' has been defined u/s 2(c) of the Act to include any donation, delivery or transfer made by any foreign source of any currency, whether Indian or foreign. Section 10 empowers the Central Government to prohibit any associa-fion from accepting any foreign contribution. Section 11 provides that every individual, association or organisation has to obtain prior permission of the Central Government to accept any foreign contribution. Section 12 empowers the Central Government to prohibit payment of currency received in contravention of the Act. Section 14 gives the power to the Central Government to inspect accounts or records of any person, organisation. Section 15 gives power to the authorised officer to seize the accounts an records. Section 16 empowers the authorised officer to seize the currency if received in contravention of the Act. Sections 18, 19 and 20 give the procedure for confiscation in case a contribution has been received against the provisions of the Act. u/s 21 of the Act a person has been given a right of appeal. 21. From a reading of the Act, it is clear that the Act is a complete Code by itself and if there is any violation of the Act or Rules framed there under, the Act gives powers to the Central Government to seize the said contribution and to take action for violation of the Act and the Rules. If there was a violation of the Act and the Rules framed there under, then the Central Government has power to take action under the provisions of the Act. Merely because it was alleged by the Plaintiff-Respondents that foreign contribution had been received and that the said contribution is illegal and admittedly when the money did not belong to the Plaintiffs, the trial court could not have granted an ad interim injunction on that ground. The trial court, in my opinion, clearly acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction in issuing an injunction restraining the Banks from paying the amount deposited in the Banks to the Petitioners, both the grounds on which the injunction had been granted, in fact, did not exist. In the circumstances, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is well founded in so far as the injunction order dated 7th October, 1983 is concerned. The said exparte injunction order is liable to be quashed. 22. In the circumstances, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is well founded in so far as the injunction order dated 7th October, 1983 is concerned. The said exparte injunction order is liable to be quashed. 22. The injunction application is still pending. The mere fact that I have quashed the injunction order does not deprive the courts from passing the final orders on the injunction application moved by the Plaintiff-Respondents on merits. The final order shall be passed only after hearing the parties concerned. 23. In so far as the main question raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, I agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel that if it is found on the face of the plaint that it is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court or that the suit is not maintainable in law, or even in a case where the relief sought is directly in conflict with the Constitution it is open to the High Court to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and quash the proceedings in the suit. In a case where it would be necessary to investigate into disputed question of facts it would not be appropriate to exercise this extra-ordinary jurisdiction. In the instant case the contentions raised by the Petitioner require a detailed examination of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record in order to come to the conclusion that the suit is maintainable or not. 24. The CPC itself, however, provides a remedy in Such a case. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code empowers the court to reject a plaint. It is quoted below: The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: Where it does not disclose a cause of action; Where the relief claimed is under valued, 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 ; 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 ; Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the Plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be,-within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the Plaintiff. 25. Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action, or where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. There are other grounds also mentioned in Rule 11 where the plaint can be rejected by the court. The Petitioner's case that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or that the suit is barred by any law can be a ground which can be urged before the court itself where the suit was filed. The trial court will be in a position to examine the pleadings of the parties and other evidence on the record and thereafter come to the conclusion whether it is a case where the plaint should be rejected. Section 2(2) defines 'decree'. The definition of the word 'decree' includes the rejection of a plaint. Therefore, . a party whose plaint is rejected will also have a right of appeal against an order rejecting the plaint. 26. In State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Man Singh Suraj Singh Pandvi and Others, AIR 1977 SC 2121 Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined as follows: The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal. reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O. VII R. 11 Code of CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under the Code of Civil Procedure. An activist judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under the Code of Civil Procedure. An activist judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial courts would insist imperatively on examining the partv at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. 27. In my opinion, it is one of those cases where the question whether the plaint should be rejected or not, should be decided as a preliminary issue so that justice is done to the Petitioners and the Petitioners are not put to unnecessary harassment by pendency of the proceedings against them, if the plaint does not I disclose any cause of action against them. 28. In the result, I allow the petition, quash the order dated 7th October, 1983 passed against the Petitioners. The writ of mandamus is issued to the trial court to decide the question as to whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Kule 11 of the Code of CPC as a preliminary issue and further take steps to dispose of this issue expeditiously. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.