JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. Since respondent No.4 is a formal party, therefore, need not be served. 2. Present petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage itself. 3. Present petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 07.09.2013 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Class/SDO, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, judgment and order dated 24.09.2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner/1st Appellate Court as well as judgment and order dated 16.08.2014, passed by Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand/ 2nd Appellate Authority. 4. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiff/petitioner, herein, has filed Revenue Suit No. 22/34 of 2011-12 under Section 176 of UP ZA & LR Act seeking partition of the property in question saying that earlier Pritam Singh son of Ram Lal was sole bhumidhar in possession of the property in question, however, he has sold different areas in favour of defendants nos. 1 to 3 as well as predecessors of the plaintiff without disclosing the boundaries therein, therefore, plaintiff as well as defendants are the co-owners in possession of the property in question; consequently, property may be partitioned as per the shares of the co-owners. Along with the plaint, plaintiff/petitioner, herein, has moved an application under Section 229-D of the Act seeking ad interim injunction. While deciding the ad interim injunction application moved under Section 229-D of the Act, learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit itself saying that property does not seem to be joint property. Plaintiff/petitioner carried the matter to the 1st Appellate Court as well as to the 2nd Appellate Court, however, both the Appellate Authorities were pleased to dismiss the appeal so filed by the plaintiff/petitioner upholding the order of the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit itself at the stage of deciding the ad interim injunction application. 5. Undisputedly, learned Trial Court has not framed any issue to the effect as to whether the property is a joint property, wherein petitioner is having share of 0.553 hectare as alleged in the plaint. Had there been such issue, learned Trial Court could have recorded its finding after considering the evidence led by the parties as to whether property is joint or separate portions were sold by Pritam Singh. The course adopted by learned Trial Court is unknown to the law. 6. Had there been such issue, learned Trial Court could have recorded its finding after considering the evidence led by the parties as to whether property is joint or separate portions were sold by Pritam Singh. The course adopted by learned Trial Court is unknown to the law. 6. A suit can be decided by the Trial Court after framing the proper issues and affording sufficient opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence in support of their respective claims/defence. A plaint can be rejected at the preliminary stage when either of the ground mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is made out. However, suit ought not have been decided along with the ad interim injunction application. 7. Consequently, impugned order dismissing the suit does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. All the impugned orders are hereby set aside. Suit is restored to its original number on the file of learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court is directed to decide the suit at its own merit in accordance with law, preferably within six months from the first date fixed before learned Trial Court. Parties shall remain present before learned Trial Court for further orders on 9.1.2015. 8. CLMA No. 14052 of 2014 also stands disposed of accordingly.