JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos.3 and 4 (for short 'the defendants') against the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate (East), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 133/2012, whereby the application under Order 7, Rule 3 and 11 (a) read with section 151 CPC filed by the defendants has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. Defendants had filed an application under Order 7, Rule 3 and 11 (a) read with section 151 CPC but the trial court vide order dated 08.01.2016 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the trial court had not appreciated the averments of the plaint in right perspective. A perusal of the plaint reveals that there was no privity of contract between the defendants and plaintiff. Plaintiff Society had no right to file a suit against the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that as per the Contract Act, a person cannot transfer his contractual right to other person for adjudication. So, revision petition filed by the defendants be allowed and the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the trial court be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Indu Kakkar v. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 1999 SC 296 ; (2) M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. M/s Bharat Spun Pipe Co. reported in AIR 1975 Calcutta 8; (3) Khardah Company Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. (India) Private Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1810 ; (4) Bharat Karsondas Thakkar v. Kiran Construction Company & Ors. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 46 ; (5) Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706 ; (6) Church of North Indta v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai & Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 760; (7) Smt. Govindammal v. Murugesan & Anr. reported in AIR 2011 Madras 235; (8) Ambeshwar Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. Babu Lal & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3101/2018 decided on 13.12.2011; (9) Smt. Vimla Kasliwal & Anr. v. Shri. Rajendra Kumar Kasliwal & Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 760; (7) Smt. Govindammal v. Murugesan & Anr. reported in AIR 2011 Madras 235; (8) Ambeshwar Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. Babu Lal & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3101/2018 decided on 13.12.2011; (9) Smt. Vimla Kasliwal & Anr. v. Shri. Rajendra Kumar Kasliwal & Ors. in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 79/2016 decided on 03.08.2018; (10) Temple of Thakur Shri v. Shri. Kanhaiyalal & Ors. reported in RLW 2008 (2) Raj 1390 and (11) Illachi Devi (Dead) by LRs & Ors. v. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India & Ors. reported in (2003) 8 SCC 413 . 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants because at the time of deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 3 and 11 (a) read with section 151 CPC, trial court had to see the averments of the plaint only and not the defence of the defendants. Contentions raised by the defendants shall be considered only after taking evidence of the parties. So, revision petition be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. 6. While dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 3 and 11 (a) read with section 151 CPC, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that trial court had to see the averments of the plaint only and not the defence of the defendants. Contentions raised by the defendants shall be considered only after taking evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. So, present revision petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.