ORDER : C.L. SONI, J. The petitioner is the original defendant No. 1 in the suit being Special Civil Suit No. 66 of 2006 preferred by his daughter-respondent No. 1. The suit is preferred seeking declaration that respondent No. 1 is entitled to receive Rs. 4,00,000/- as marriage expenses from the petitioner who has neglected her and her mother. In such suit after filing written statement, the petitioner preferred an application at Exh.40 seeking to reject the suit on the ground that it is not maintainable. It is stated in such application that there is no basis for filing the suit and that no cause of action is shown for filing the suit. It is not stated that under which provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“the Code”), such application came to be filed by the petitioner. Learned 5th Additional Senior Division Judge rejected the application vide order dated 04.04.2009 which is impugned in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the suit is premature as before even incurring marriage expenses, the suit is filed to recover marriage expenses from the petitioner. He submitted that there is also no cause of action revealed by respondent No. 1 to file the suit against the petitioner. He submitted that when there is no basis and no cause of action for filing the suit, the suit was required to be rejected by holding that the suit was not maintainable. 3. The Court, having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and having perused the contents of the plaint at Annexure-A as also the impugned order, finds that respondent No. 1 in her plaint has stated that she was born out of the wedlock of her mother with the petitioner and when she was minor, the petitioner deserted her and her mother and they then started residing with parents of her mother. It is further stated that the petitioner has been earning Rs. 15,000/- as a senior office of the Government and she being the daughter of the petitioner is entitled to claim share in the property of the petitioner as also to claim marriage expenses from the petitioner. It is stated that since the petitioner did not respond to the demand made by her for the marriage expenses, the cause for filing the suit has arisen. It is stated that since the petitioner did not respond to the demand made by her for the marriage expenses, the cause for filing the suit has arisen. In view of such averments in the plaint, the Court finds that it is not possible to say that there is no basis or no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint for filing the suit. 4. The petitioner has not stated as to under which provision of the Code, the application at Exh.40 was preferred. However, if the application of the petitioner is taken to have been filed under Order VII Rule 11, considering the contents of the plaint, it cannot be said that the petitioner has made out any ground for rejection of the plaint. If the application is not to be considered as filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code then to reject the suit on the ground that it is not maintainable, different procedure is to be followed but the suit cannot be dismissed simply on application of the nature preferred at Exh.40 The Court, therefore, finds that learned Judge has committed no error in rejecting the application at Exh.40 by impugned order. No interference is required by this Court in the impugned order in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is, therefore, rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.