ORDER : K.S. Hemalekha, J. These two matters arise out of the rival claims over the use of the name ‘Vidyanjali’ in respect of the educational institutions run by the parties. 2. The petitioner in Civil Revision petition is the defendant, whereas the appellant in miscellaneous first appeal is the plaintiff in O.S. No.3672/2021 and O.S. No.1361/2022. 3. Both petitions called in question two separate interlocutory orders passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-10) Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short). Brief facts: 4. The respondent-Trust claims to have adopted the name ‘Vidyanjali’ in the year 1992 for its educational institution and asserts that it has continuously used the said name since then, thereby acquiring goodwill, reputation and distinctiveness. It further claims that CBSE affiliation, ISO and NABT accreditation, and eventual registration of the trademark on 08.01.2022 pursuant to an application dated 10.07.2019. 5. The petitioner in the CRP and the respondent in the MFA run an institution named as ‘Vidyanjali Primary and High School’, claiming use of name since 20.01.2003 through Pavitra Cultural and Educational Society, with permission from the Education Department, recognized by the SSLC Board. It asserts long-standing independent reputation and denies any dishonest adoption. It also asserts that the institution has been functioning openly for more than two decades. 6. In O.S. No.3672/2021, the trust filed a suit for passing off. The petitioner in CRP herein filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, which came to be dismissed on 07.11.2022. This order is the subject matter of the CRP. 7. In O.S. No.1361/2022 the trust filed a suit for infringement of its registered trademark and sought temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Trial Court rejected the injunction on 07.12.2022. This order is under challenge in the MFA. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and the respondent in MFA contends that the suit for passing off is not maintainable, as running an educational institution does not amount to a ‘trade’ or ‘commercial service’ under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Act’ for short). Further, it is contended that the plaint discloses no cause of action and hence, it is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC. Further, it is contended that the plaint discloses no cause of action and hence, it is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC. It is further contended that the plaintiff is not a registered proprietor at the time of filing the suit and cannot prevent the defendant's long-standing use since 2003. It is contended that there is no dishonest adoption or confusion created by the defendant. 9. Further, it is contended that the defendant has been using the name Vidyanjali since 2001-2003 with Government recognition. The plaintiff applied for the trademark only in 2019, long after defendant's adoption of the name and contends that there is no material to show that defendant adopted the name with the knowledge of the plaintiff's existence. It is contended that there is no reduction in plaintiff's admission, nor is any irreparable loss or injury being caused and the Trial Court, having found that both the institutions have independent reputation, rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff in CRP and appellant-plaintiff in MFA contends that Section 27 (2) of the Act preserves the remedy of passing off even for unregistered marks and the plaintiff is a prior user since 1992, having acquired substantial goodwill and reputation. It is submitted that the questions as to ‘whether the plaintiff's name is distinctive and whether defendant’s adoption amounts to passing off are triable issues requiring evidence and rejection of the plaint at the threshold would deprive the plaintiff of an opportunity to establish its right. 11. Insofar as the rejection of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 against which the MFA has been preferred, learned counsel submits that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark Vidyanjali, whereas the defendant’s name ‘Vidyanjali Primary and High School’, is ‘phonetically, visually and structurally identical’ and the defendant's adoption is dishonest and intended to ride on the plaintiff's good will and thus, the Trial Court erred in holding that no prima facie case or balance of convenience is made out for granting of temporary injunction, which is not justifiable and sought to interfere with the same. 12. 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “i. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC in O.S. No.3672/2021? ii. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in O.S. No.1361/2022?” 13. The Trial Court has recorded that the plaintiff in O.S. No.3672/2021 asserts prior user and alleges passing off. The question whether the plaintiff's name had acquired distinctiveness, whether defendant's use is honest or deceptive, and whether confusion is likely, are all tribal issues requiring full-fledged trial. The Trial Court recorded that the suit filed by the plaintiff is one for passing off and the plea of the defendant that the suit is not maintainable under Section 27 (1) of the Act is misconceived, as Section 27 (2) expressly preserves the common law remedy for passing off even for unregistered marks. Further, the Trial Court held that the defendant's contentions require evidence and that rejecting the plaint at this stage would amount to denying the plaintiff an opportunity to establish his right. 14. The law is well settled that as to whether a plaint is liable to be rejected must be determined on a demurrer, that is, by reading the plaint as a whole, including plaintiff's pleadings and averments, without referring to a defence raised in the written statement, as held by the Apex Court in T. Arvindandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and another, (1977) 4 SCC 467 (T. Arvindandam). 15. It is also well settled that the Court cannot consider the written statement, applications or defence material at this stage and the truth or falsity of the averments cannot be examined. If the plaint discloses a cause of action, it cannot be rejected, even if the defendant asserts that the claim is vague, barred, or improbable, as long as the plaint prima facie discloses some cause of action, it cannot be rejected. For rejection under Order VII Rule 11 (d), the suit must appear, from the statements in the plaint alone, to be barred by law. The bar cannot be inferred from external material. 16. For rejection under Order VII Rule 11 (d), the suit must appear, from the statements in the plaint alone, to be barred by law. The bar cannot be inferred from external material. 16. The Court also cannot conduct an enquiry into disputed questions of fact, such as prior user, limitation, fraud or mala fide conduct, while considering an application for rejection of the plaint and these are matters requiring trial. The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to be exercised on a plain reading of the plaint, without reference to the defence or disputed materials. Only where the plaint, even if taken to be true in its entirety, discloses no cause of action or shows an express statutory bar, can the plaint be rejected. The Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into disputed facts, and rejection of a plaint being a drastic power, and can be invoked only when the infirmity is apparent on the face of the record and is incurable. 17. On careful consideration of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has rightly declined to reject the plaint. The scope of interference under Order VII Rule 11 CPC being extremely limited and the plaint must be examined as a whole, taking its averment as true without reference to the defence. It is not permissible at this stage to examine disputed questions of fact, including prior user, acquisition of goodwill, distinctiveness of the mark, or the honesty of adoption. These issues require evidence and cannot be adjudicated at the threshold. Since the plaintiff has pleaded prior user, goodwill and likelihood of confusion, and has sought the common law remedy of passing off, which is expressly preserved under Section 27 (2) of the Act, it cannot be held that the suit is barred by law. The bar under Section 27 (1), relied upon by the petitioner does not apply to passing off actions. The Trial Court has therefore committed no error or illegality in holding that the issues raised are triable and that the plaint cannot be rejected at inception. Accordingly no ground is made for interference on the application filed under Order VII Rule 11. 18. As regards the temporary injunction, the Trial Court has taken note of the defendant’s continuous use of name Vidyanjali since 2001-2003, with Government permission, SSLC Board, recognition and independent goodwill. Accordingly no ground is made for interference on the application filed under Order VII Rule 11. 18. As regards the temporary injunction, the Trial Court has taken note of the defendant’s continuous use of name Vidyanjali since 2001-2003, with Government permission, SSLC Board, recognition and independent goodwill. The Court found no material to show that the defendant adopted the name dishonestly or with the knowledge of the plaintiff's institution at the time of adoption. The Trial Court also recorded that the defendant has also acquired reputation and goodwill and granting of injunction would cause hardship to the defendant. Consequently, it held that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss and by the impugned order, rejected the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2. 19. From 2021 to 2023, and event to date, the plaintiff has not enjoyed the benefit of interim order of injunction. The suits are required to be tried on evidence. No ground is made out to disturb the interlocutory orders. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Civil Revision Petition No.130/2023 fails and is accordingly dismissed ii. MFA No.360/2023 is disposed of confirming the order dated 07.12.2022. iii. The Trial Court is directed to consider the matter on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open to be adjudicated before the Trial Court. iv. The Trial Court shall consider the suits on their merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.