JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioners against the order dated 2.3.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Fatehpur, Shekhawati, District, Sikar, in Civil Suit No. 99/2011 Goyenka Welfare Trust v. Govind Ram & Anr. , whereby the application of the defendant-petitioners filed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC had been rejected. 2. In the aforesaid application, the defendant-petitioners have stated that the plaintiff-respondent has claimed that the plaintiff-respondent is a Public Trust but it is an unregistered Trust, as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (In short the 'Act') the suit filed by it is not at all maintainable.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioners has submitted that as per Section 29 of the Act, the plaint preferred by plaintiff-respondent is liable to be rejected as the plaintiff-respondent is not a registered Public Trust and the learned Court-below has failed to appreciate this provision of the Act and wrongly rejected the application filed by the defendant-petitioners. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent has submitted that there is no bar for filing suit by an unregistered Public Trust. He has further submitted that this is a matter of evidence. The provisions of Order 7, Rule 1 CPC never burden the plaintiff to specify the fact that whether the Trust was registered or unregistered and at the time of invoking provisions under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, the averments of plaint are only to see by the Court and from perusing the plaint, it cannot be said that it is barred by law. He supported the order passed by the Court-below, dated 2.3.2013 (Annexure-6). 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order (Annexure-6). From the perusal of the order impugned dated 2.3.2013 (Annexure-6), it reveals that the Court-below, rightly dismissed the application of the defendant-petitioners after considering the fact that whether the plaintiff-respondent is a Public trust or a Private Trust, is a mixed question of law and fact and it could be decided after recording the evidence of the parties and only on this count, the plaint cannot be dismissed. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, irregularity and impropriety in the order impugned passed by the Court below, dated 2.3.2013. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, irregularity and impropriety in the order impugned passed by the Court below, dated 2.3.2013. However, the trial Court is directed to frame legal issue with regard to objection taken whether the plaintiff-respondent is a Public Trust or not after filing written statement by the defendant-petitioners and the same be decided by the Court-below, first as a preliminary issue. 6. Accordingly, the Revision petition as well as the Stay Application are disposed of. *******