S. Kumar, J. – Heard parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the defendants/petitioners against the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by learned Sub-Judge-VIII, Kaimur, Bhabhua in title Suit No.1084/2017 by which an application of the defendants under order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint has been dismissed. 3. Plaintiffs-opposite parties have filed a suit for partition of the suit land on the ground that they are descendants of original title holder late Bechan Singh. Defendants-petitioners appeared in the suit and filed their written statement and stated that the father of the parties had died prior to coming of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 way back in 1955 as such plaintiffs have no right in the property of late Bechan Singh and all properties acquired by late Bechan Singh devolved upon defendants by succession. It has been stated in the plaint that there has been a previous partition with respect to same suit land in a permanent Lok Adalat, however, in said partition in which Award was prepared dated 07.09.2011, plaintiffs were not the parties and the partition took place between son of late Bechan Singh and wife of other defendants, as such, said award is not binding upon them. The trial court after considering the rival contentions of the parties, dismissed the application of defendants/petitioners on the ground that the issues raised by the defendants/petitioners are not pure question of law rather missed question of law and facts and it cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the defendants/petitioners that plaint does not disclose any cause of action as such plaint should be rejected. 5. Cause of action is a bundle of facts upon establishing of which plaintiffs are entitled for relief. In the present case, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action as such, said submission of the counsel for the defendants/petitioners is not acceptable. 6. It has been further contended on behalf of the opposite parties that plaint can be rejected only on two grounds either plaint does not disclose any cause of action or the suit is barred by law. In the present case, none of the two grounds exist as such the order passed by the court below does not require any interference. 7. In the present case, none of the two grounds exist as such the order passed by the court below does not require any interference. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any material irregularity or any jurisdictional error in the order passed by trial court, as such the civil revision is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the defendants/petitioners that after framing of the issues, they would be at liberty to file petition under Order 14 Rule 2 before the trial court to decide these issues as preliminary issue which will be considered by the trial court on its own merit. 8. Civil revision is disposed of.