JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 4.5.2006 by which the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. has been dismissed. 3. In the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C., the defendant- petitioner had averred that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff Gayatri Pariwar Trust through Murarilal, Chief Managing Trustee, whereas, as per the case of the defendant-petitioner in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. Murarilal had submitted his resignation on 11.2.2002 itself from the post of Chief Managing Trustee of the plaintiff-Trust and so could not have filed the plaint/suit on behalf of the Trust. 4. A reply was filed by the plaintiff-respondent denying the above allegations, as is evident from the impugned order dated 4.5.2006. The question, therefore, is one of the fact as to whether Murarilal continues to hold the post of Chief Managing Trustee of the plaintiff-Trust and on that basis was entitled to file the suit. That being so, the present case, in my opinion, does not fall within any of the clauses (a) to (f) of Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. 5. In that view of the matter, since the question whether or not Murarilal was the Chief Managing Trustee of the plaintiff-Trust and on that basis was entitled to file the suit, is a question of fact which cannot be decided merely on the basis of any document submitted by the defendant-petitioner which had not been admitted by the plaintiff-respondent and rather the allegations were denied, as is evident from the order dated 4.5.2006. 6. The aforesaid question could only be determined after the issue was raised and evidence recorded thereon by the learned trial Court and the issue decided in accordance with law at trial. 7. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 4.5.2006 does not call for any interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.Revision petition dismissed. *******