JUDGEMENT 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party seeks permission to delete the statement made in paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit filed today. 2. Permission is accorded. 3. Paragraph No. 5 of the aforesaid counter affidavit stands deleted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction with regard to the period of delay in filing the present civil revision application in I.A. No. 4408 of 2006. 5. The aforesaid application has been filed for condoning the delay of one month 11 days in filing the present civil revision application. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party to the aforesaid application. 7. For the reasons mentioned in this interlocutory application, the delay in filing of this civil revision application is hereby condoned. 8. I.A. No. 4408 of 2006 stands allowed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party in civil revision application. 10. Defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2006 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Bettiah in Money Suit No. 7 of 2004, whereby the prayer of the petitioners for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as "Code") has been rejected. 11. Learned counselfor the petitioners submits that the plaintiff had already received cheque for the amount of Rs. 73,94,948/-, and, as such, there was full and final settlement and thus, the filing of the money suit is barred, as no cause of action arises. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that it is apparent that there has been dispute with regard to the payment and settlement of the claim, which is evident from the averments made in paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 18 of the plaint, annexed as Annexure-1. Further contention is that issues now have been framed and both sides admit and agree that the witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The opposite party has brought on record the issues which have been framed by the court below for trial of the suit. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to issue nos. 1, 5 and 8 to demonstrate that the issues being raised by the defendants have already been framed and are to be decided by the court below during the course of the trial. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to issue nos. 1, 5 and 8 to demonstrate that the issues being raised by the defendants have already been framed and are to be decided by the court below during the course of the trial. 13. The trial court having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record has come to the conclusion that the issues as to whether the plaintiff has accepted the claim against the policy or not, alongwith other issues, are disputed questions of fact which require to be decided in course of trial. It is not apparent from plain reading of the plaint that no cause of action arises, thus, it has rejected the prayer of the defendant to decide the same as a preliminary issue for the purpose of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code at that stage. 14. It could not be shown on behalf of the petitioners that from the averments made in the plaint itself, one can arrive at the conclusion that no cause of action is made out. 15. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 19.5.2006. 16. As a result, this civil revision application is dismissed. 17. It is made clear that the court below will proceed with the trial in deciding the issues framed without being prejudiced with the observations made in the present civil revision application by this Court.