JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions raise a common question of law and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioners Pala Singh and Ramkishan Singh in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 209 of 1986, purchased nine Bighas of agricultural land from Fatta Singh - the father of Hajari Singh - situated in Chak 20 S.D.S. while petitioners Gurdayal Singh and Jai Singh purchased twenty-five Bighas of agricultural land situated in Chak No. 20 S.D.S. from Kartar Singh. Fatta Singh and Kartar Singh were originally belonging to Scheduled Castes but they embraced Christinity and were baptised and being Christines, they sold their land to the petitioners. After the death of Fatta Singh, Hajari Singh filed a suit under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for ejectment of petitioners Pala Singh and another from the land in question: Kartar Singh, also, filed a suit against petitioners Gurdayal Singh and Jai Singh under section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. These suits were filed in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh. In pursuance to the notices issued to the defendant-petitioners, they appeared before the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh, and moved the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. with the prayer that the suits filed by the plaintiffs may be dismissed as they did not disclose any cause of action. The learned Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh, by its order dated 14-11-79, dismissed the applications filed by the defendant-petitioners and directed them to file written statements. Dissatisfied with the orders dated 14-11-79 passed by the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh, the petitioners filed revision petitions before the Board of Revenue and both the revision petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue by its common judgment dated 22-11-85. The petitioners, being aggrieved of the judgment dated 22-11-85 passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, have preferred these writ petitions. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Fatta Ram and Kartar Singh, when they sold the land to the petitioners, were Christians and the plaints filed by the plaintiffs do not disclose the cause of action and as such the same should have been dismissed by the learned Assistant Collector. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Fatta Ram and Kartar Singh, when they sold the land to the petitioners, were Christians and the plaints filed by the plaintiffs do not disclose the cause of action and as such the same should have been dismissed by the learned Assistant Collector. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by conversion of Fatta Ram and Kartar Singh to Christinity, they ceased to be the members of Scheduled Castes. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance over : Brij Lal and Anr. v. the Board of Revenue and Ors. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1861 of 1980 and the other connected cases - decided on 9-3-90. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that only a tenant can bring a suit under Section 80 of the Act while the plaintiffs were not the tenants as the land already stood transferred in favour of the petitioners by then and unless the sale-deeds are set-aside, the suits were not maintainable, and the orders, passed by the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh as well as the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the learned Member of.the Board of Revenue and submitted that the plaints in both the cases do disclose the cause of action and, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be rejected at the initial stage. 4. Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. casts a duty upon the Court to reject the plaint when it does not disclose any cause of action. But if a bare reading of the plaint discloses the cause of action then the plaint cannot be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and if any defence is available to the defendants then they can raise their defence in the written statement. We have gone through the plaints in both the cases and after reading the plaints, we are of the opinion that the contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is devoid of any force. The plaints disclose the cause of action and raises issues which require adjudication. We have gone through the plaints in both the cases and after reading the plaints, we are of the opinion that the contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is devoid of any force. The plaints disclose the cause of action and raises issues which require adjudication. As the plaints disclose the cause of action and the same cannot be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The petitioners may appear before the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh, and file their written statements and if any question regarding the maintainability of the suit is raised before the learned trial Court in the written statements which goes to the root of the matter then the learned Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh, may determine that issue as Preliminary Issue and then proceed with the trial. 5. In this view of the matter,we do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******