1. Rule 1 of Order VII C.P.C enjoins upon the plaintiff to state the facts constituting the cause of action in the plaint. Order VII Rule 11 casts a mandatory obligation on the court to reject the plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action. For deciding as to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action the averments of the plaint alone are thus required to be examined. By the order impugned in this revision Learned Trial Court has deferred the decision of the question as in its opinion the question raised in the suit is a mixed question of fact and law. 2. Plaintiff who is respondent herein in the capacity of Secretary/Administrator Jagriti Niketan School has filed a suit for declaration and injunction etc. against the petitioners herein. In the body of the plaint except averring as follows in Para 3 nothing has been stated as to how the plaintiff is authorized to institute the suit:- "That the name of the School had to see one more change from Model Nursery and Elementary School Jagriti Niketan (Reg. Society under Registration of Societies Act) and with it there was also expansion in the school now unto 10th standard." 3. From the above made averment of the plaint it appears that school is being run by a Society registered under Societies Registration Act and on behalf of the Society the plaintiff is suing the defendants. This fact is also not being disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent at bar. The provisions contained therein govern the Society being registered under the said Act. Section 6-A deals with suits on behalf of or against such Society. It reads:- "6-A.. Suits by and against Society:- Every Society registered under this Act may sue in the name of the President, Chairman or Principal Secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules of the society, and in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion: Provided that it shall be competent for any person having claim or demand against the society, to sue the president or chairman, or principal secretary or the trustees thereof, if an application to the governing body some other officer or person be not nominated to be the defendant." 4. From the bare perusal of the Section it transpires that the Society can sue only through President, Chairman, Principal Secretary or trustees as is provided under the rules of the Society and if rules do not provide so then by such person who has been appointed by the governing body. The governing body has been defined under Section 14 of the said Act to be governed by the council, directors, committee, trustees or other body to whom by the rules of the Society the management of its affairs is entrusted. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to show in the plaint as to whether he is duly authorized by the governing body to institute a suit under the rules of the Society. As already said nothing has been pleaded in the plaint in this behalf. Be it so as it may the fact remains that defendant in their written statement filed in reply to the plaint have disputed the right of the plaintiff to institute a suit. Upon the pleadings of the parties Learned Trial Court framed the issues vide its order dated 15th of January 2003. Issue No. 1 reads as under:- "1. Whether the suit is not maintainable as plaintiff has no legal right to file suit? O.P.D." 5. Learned Trial Court has not taken up issue No. 1 as preliminary issue, though the decision of the same was likely to go to the root of the case. The defendant filed an application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking the rejection of the plaint on the ground that suit of the plaint does not disclose as to how plaintiff-Mr. M.K.Sharma is competent to maintain the suit on behalf of the Society against them. 6. Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties has left the question open. In the view of the learned Trial Court decision of the issue dependent on the question of fact, therefore, it was not deemed desirable to take this issue as preliminary. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned Trial Court dated 27th of August 2003 the defendants have filed this revision petition. 8. 1 havse heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of this revision petition. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned Trial Court dated 27th of August 2003 the defendants have filed this revision petition. 8. 1 havse heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of this revision petition. He submits that as the Learned Trial Court has not decided the issue in one-way or the other, the objection raised in the application still remains undecided, therefore, the order of the trial court does not fall within the expression case decided used under Section 115 CPC therefore revision does not lie. Section 115 of CPC no doubt creates a bar for entertaining a revision petition against the order, which does not fall within the category of case decided but refusal to exercise jurisdiction for adjudicating upon an issue which goes to the root of the case brings the order of the Trial Court within the said expression. The Learned Trial Court has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law under the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11. It was duty of the Court to see from the plaint whether any cause of action has been disclosed. By refusing to discharge such obligation the order of the Trial Court has become amenable to revisional jurisdiction. 9. As regards the view of the Learned Trial Court that the question raised is a mixed question of law and fact, in my opinion the same is erroneous. It is a pure question of law being dependent upon the facts pleaded. For ascertaining a cause of action only the averments of the plaint were to be perused. It is only when the plaintiff states the facts constituting the cause of action in the plaint and the Court makes prima facie opinion that such facts constitute a cause of action and then if the defendant denies the correctness of such facts in the written statement the question becomes question of law and facts. Learned Trial Court therefore should have first formulated a prima facie opinion on the facts stated in the plaint about the existence of the cause of action and then it ought to have seen whether there was denial of such facts in the written statement for deciding whether issue needed to be decided as preliminary issue or it required the evidence of the parties for adjudication of the same. As it has not been done the order of the Learned Trial Court cannot be sustained. The same is therefore set aside and the case is remitted back for passing fresh order after hearing the parties