JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. Heard counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff respondent. With their consent, this petition is being decided finally, without inviting a counter affidavit. 2. The plaintiff respondent instituted Original Suit No. 312 of 2004 for declaration that the she is co-owner to the extent of half share in the suit property bearing House No. B 27/62, Durga Kund, Varanasi and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the ownership rights and possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The plaintiff claimed title to the suit property on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Durga Vinayak Prasad dated 5 August 1951 in favour of his younger sister Smt. Durga Devi (mother of the plaintiff) and the daughter of his another deceased sister. The suit was contested by the petitioners, who claim themselves to be transferees from defendant No. 2 Smt. Meera Devi, inter alia on the plea that the plaintiff has no cause of action to maintain the suit inasmuch as, under the law, she did not inherit any independent right to the suit property. Their case was that the mother of the plaintiff was only designated as the person who would represent the ultimate beneficiary i.e. the male legal heirs. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issue No. 11 to the effect whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action and issue No. 12 to the effect whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 3. The trial Court vide order dated 7 February 2014 decided issue No. 12 in favour of the plaintiff whereas, it deferred the decision on issue No. 11, being of the opinion that it is a mixed question of law and fact and shall be decided after the evidence is led by the parties. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed a revision, which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Varanasi by the impugned order dated 2 April 2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that there is grave inconsistency in the order passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed a revision, which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Varanasi by the impugned order dated 2 April 2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that there is grave inconsistency in the order passed by the trial Court. It is submitted that in the discussion part, the Court has come to the conclusion that the suit does not appear to be barred by any provision law nor it can be said that the plaintiff does not have any cause of action whereas, in the operative part, though issue No. 12 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff, the decision on issue No. 11 has been deferred. It is submitted that both the issues are linked to each other and since issue No. 12 has been decided in favour of the plaintiff and thus, it would not be possible for the Court to decide issue No. 11 in favour of the defendants, as any such decision would be contrary to the decision on issue No. 12. The relevant part of the order of the trial Court dated 7 February 2014 is to the following effect: - "flfOky çfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 ij fOkjfpr okn fcUnq ds fuLrkj.k ds le; i=koyh ij nkf[ky nLrkostksa ds lEcU/k ,oa muds vk/kkj ij esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ fu"d"kZ fudkys tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA bl Lrj ij ek= nkos esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks ns[kk tkrk gS vkSj nkos esa okfnuh us vius okn dkj.k dks Li"V : i ls vfHkdfFkr fd;k gSA nkos ds voyksdu ls okfnuh ds nkos dk fdlh Hkh dkuwu ls ckf/kr gksuk izdV ugha gks jgk gS rFkk ;g nksuks okn fcUnq okfnuh ds i{k esa izfroknhx.k ds fo: ) udkjkRed : i ls fu.khZr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS A vkns'k okn fcUnq la[;k&12 okfnuh ds i{k esa] izfroknh ds fo: ) udkjkRed : i ls fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gS A okn fcUnq la0 11 dk fuLrkj.k lEiw.kZ lk{;ksijkUr vU; fcUnqvksa ds lkFk fd;k tk;sxk A i=koyh okLrs ftjg fnukad 01-03-2014 dks is'k gksA g0 vij flfoy tt lh0fM0@ vij y?kqokn U;k;ky; U;k;k/kh'k okjk.klh A (emphasis supplied by me) 5. A bare perusal of the order of the trial Court would show that in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order, the trial Court has held that both the issues are liable to be decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants whereas, in the operative part, it has been held that issue No. 12 is being decided in favour of the plaintiff and the decision on issue No. 11 is being deferred. Thus, there is considerable force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the trial Court is inconsistent and in view of the opinion already expressed by it, it would not be possible for the trial Court to decide issue No. 11 in favour of the defendants. Further, it is rightly pointed out that both the issues are inter-linked and should either be decided together or deferred for decision after oral evidence is led by the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff respondents very fairly conceded that there is inconsistency in the discussion part of the order and the operative part thereof. He submits that the matter be remitted back to the trial Court for decision afresh, so that the proceedings in the suit are not held up. 7. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 7 February 2014 passed by the trial Court and as affirmed by the revisional Court are set-aside. The trial Court is directed to decide issue Nos. 11 & 12 afresh, after hearing the parties. The trial Court shall be free to ascertain whether these issues can be decided at this stage or after the evidence is led by the parties and to pass orders accordingly. 8. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.