JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 5.1.17 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sadulsahar, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC stands rejected. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner in respect of two residential plots alleged to be in their use and occupation. The petitioner preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against her in his individual name as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat whereas, the plaint filed does not disclose any cause of action against her in individual capacity. That apart, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that if the suit is filed against her as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, before instituting the suit, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to fulfil the condition precedent of notice under Section 109 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner further contended that Gram Panchayat, Maniwali and Secretary, Gram Panchayat are necessary parties and thus, the suit suffers from vice of non joinder of necessary parties. It was contended that the suit as framed seeking permanent injunction without the relief of declaration is not maintainable. 3. The application preferred by the respondent/plaintiff has been rejected by the court below observing that the issues raised by the defendants are mixed questions of law and facts which could be decided appropriately only after the evidence being led by the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the contentions raised on behalf of the defendants have simply not been considered by the court below and the application has been rejected by passing a cryptic order. Learned counsel submitted that the grievance raised by the plaintiff is against the Gram Panchayat and not against the petitioner in her individual capacity and thus, the suit which does not disclose any cause of action as against the petitioner in her individual capacity is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel submitted that if the suit is filed against the petitioner as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat then, as per mandate of provisions of Section 109, the suit instituted without service of the prior notice of two months upon the Gram Panchayat stating the cause of action, the nature of the relief claimed etc. was liable to be rejected on this count alone. 5. was liable to be rejected on this count alone. 5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the order passed by the court below and submitted that the contentious issues between the parties can only be decided after evidence being led by the parties, however, it is fairly not disputed by the learned counsel that the court below has passed the order without due consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. A bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that the court below has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner by merely recording its ipse dixit that the questions raised by the defendant are mixed question of law and facts, which could be decided only after the evidence being led by the parties. The contention raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the suit in light of provisions of Section 109 of the Act has not been considered by the court below in correct perspective. That apart, apparently, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner in his individual name as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat and thus, whether the plaint discloses the cause of action against the defendant in her individual capacity should have been examined by the court below while deciding the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11. In the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the court below in cursory manner without considering the contentions raised in correct perspective, cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 5.1.17 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sadulsahar in Civil Suit No.3/16 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the court below for decision of the application afresh after due consideration of the rival submissions in accordance with law. No order as to costs.