JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against order dated 25.9.2013 passed by Civil judge (junior Division), Udaipur City-South, Udaipur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been rejected. 2. The application under Order 7, Rule 11 was filed on two counts:- (a) The plaint does not disclose a cause of action, (b) The suit was barred by law. 3. The Trial Court while deciding the application came to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by law and, regarding cause of action, the Court observed that the same was a mixed question of law and fact, which can only be decided after taking evidence of the parties. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issues raised are pure question of law. The issue as to whether the plaint disclosed any cause of action or not, it was submitted that the land in question is admittedly an agricultural land and the plaintiff has claimed easementary rights which rights are apparently not available in view of provision of Section 17 of the Easement Act, 1882 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said issue raised by the petitioner was mixed question of law and fact so as to require evidence. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that written statement has already been filed and the Trial Court be directed to frame and decide the issues raised by the petitioner in his application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C., which issues have specifically being raised in the written statement as preliminary issues. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the submissions regarding non- disclosure of cause of action based on provisions referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaint as filed cannot be rejected under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (a)(d) C.P.C. 7. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to direct the Trial Court to inter alia frame issues based on the pleadings of the parties regarding jurisdiction and non-disclosure of cause of action and as per law decide the same as preliminary issues. It is expected of the Trial Court to frame issues and decide the preliminary issues as expeditiously as possible.With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of. The stay application also stands disposed of.Revision disposed of. *******