JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist Shri A.R. Mehta. Perused the orders impugned passed by learned trial Court as well as learned lower appellate Court. 2. For proper and effective decision of the present revision I have also perused the copy of the plaint disclosing the cause of action in para 6 of the plaint. 3. It is true that in para 6 of the plaint cause of actions have been disclosed but according to the learned counsel for the revisionist the basis of cause of action shown in Para 6 of the plaint have become non-est because the licence which is alleged in para 6 has been cancelled by appropriate authority. 4. I am of the opinion that in such cases it must be remembered that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, not in a formal manner, it discloses a cause of action as contemplated u/O. 7, R. 11 CPC then the plaint cannot be rejected. But in the present case if the statement at the bar is accepted then the cause of action which is disclosed in Para 6 of the plaint ceased to exist. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case if drafting of plaint has created a simple illusion of cause of action it is required to be nipped in the bud at the earliest opportunity by recording the statement of the plaintiff as well as the defendant u/O. 10 R. 1 CPC. 6. It is settled principle of law that the statements recorded u/O. 10, R. 1 CPC becomes the part of pleadings, therefore, after taking the aid of the statements of the parties u/O.10, R. 1 CPC if the learned trial Court comes to the conclusion that the cause of action shown in para 6 of the plaint is frivolous and fictitious it has jurisdiction to reject the plaint u/O. 7, R. 11 CPC but not otherwise. 7. The learned lower appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and as such it does not require interference in revision. 7. The learned lower appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and as such it does not require interference in revision. There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned lower appellate Court, therefore, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.As a result of the aforementioned discussion the instant revision is hereby dismissed summarily subject to the observations made in the body of the order.Revision allowed. *******