JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur dated February 20, 1993 by which he has rejected the defendant-petitioners' application moved under Order 7 rule 11, C.P.C. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioners filed suit No. 45/91 against the defendant-petitioners and non-petitioner no.4 with eight prayers (ka) to (ja). The defendant-petitioners moved an application under Order 7 rule 11, C.P.C. for the rejection of the plaint stating that the reliefs No. (ka), (kha), (ga) and (gha) cannot be granted as the first relief (ka) is barred under Limitation Act, reliefs (kha) and (ga) are barred under Rajasthan Public Trusts Act and the relief (gha) cannot be granted by any civil court, being against the provisions of Constitution. Nothing has been said about the remaining reliefs. In pars No. 4, specific and detailed averments have been made for bringing relief (ka) within limitation. Similarly, averments have also been made in respect of reliefs (kha) and (ga). Admittedly application under consideration was moved under Order 7 rule 11(d), C.P.C. From the statement made in the plaint it cannot be said that it is barred by any law. The learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur has rightly rejected the application. 3. There is yet another aspect of the case. Admittedly, application under Order 7 rule 11, C.P.C., was moved before filing of the written statement. It is open to the defendant-petitioners to take all these objections in their written statement. Issues will be framed on all their objections and the trial court will have to decide them. As such the defendant-petitioners do not go to suffer any irreparable injury and the impugned order has not occasioned failure of justice. 4. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******