Judgment P.K. Deb, J. This revision petition has arisen out of the order dated the 14th August, 1997 passed by the First Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur in Title Partition Suit No. 316 of 1994, whereby the prayer made for and on behalf of the defendant-petitioner for return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code, as on the face of it, there remained no cause of action for the suit has been rejected. 2. Admittedly the partition suit has been filed by the son against the father and others assuming himself to be a coparcener in the coparcener joint family. The defendant petitioner, that is, father contended that the property which was said to be partitioned, is self acquired property of the father, as he got land by way of partition in the previous partition suit no. 52 of 1952 and that in the self acquired property the question of coparcener does not stand either before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force or after its enactment. Hence the prayer was made for return of the plaint as the plaintiffs' suit was premature one and he had no cause of action for partition of the self acquired property during his life time. 3. It appears from the impugned order that the learned court below misconstrued the provision of law as well as he has misread the decree of the partition suit in Title Partition Suit No. 52 of 1952. The above mentioned partition suit amongst the coparceners wherein the defendant petitioner was a party ended in compromise and when the compromise petition was filed in the year 1962 the said compromise petition is confirmed to be a decree in the year 1964. Perhaps, the learned court below instead of 1964 misread it as 1954 holding that such partition decree was prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the decree was prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, then also by analogy of law the allotment got by the petitioner in the earlier partition suit became his self acquired property and even in that case also the question of the plaintiff getting share during the life time of his father in the father's self acquired property does not arise at all. 5. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts the whole impugned order seems to be misconceived both on facts and law and the matter, therefore, requires further consideration by the court below. If there is no cause of action on the face of it then the court below should not be burdened to decide the cause of action at the end of the trial unless the matter do not relate to factual aspect too. 6. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to the court below for deciding the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties again. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs.