Honble SHARMA, J. – Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, shall be – (a) in the case of the suit by or against the Central Government, the Union of India and (b) in the case of a suit by or against a State Government, the State. (2). Admittedly, the plaintiff non-petitioner instituted suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners, Mining Enginner, Director Mines and the Secretary Mines. The defendants petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC before the trial court that no cause of action arose against them. The application was dismissed by the trial court. Hence this revision. (3). I am of the considered view that the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by section 79 CPC which is mandatory in nature. No cause of action arose against the Mining Engineer, Director Mines and the Secretary Mines. They are neither necessary parties nor proper parties. The suit could have been instituted only against the State of Rajasthan. (4). Thus the learned trial court committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC of the defendants and if the order is allowed to stand it would occasion failure of justice. (5). Consequently, the revision succeeds, and is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The application of the defendants under Order 7 rule11 CPC is accepted and the plaint stands rejected. No costs.