5. It may be observed that the plea that there is no cause of action for filing the suit is very different from the plea that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. What the learned counsel urges is that there was no cause of action for filing the suit, as the permission given by the Assistant Commissioner, which is a condition precedent to the filing of an application under Section 38 before the learned District Judge, was invalid or void. But what Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. postulates is that at the preliminary stage the Court is only to see from the averments made in the plaint as to whether, on the face of such averments, a cause of action is disclosed or not. As the question which has been raised by the learned counsel relates to the invalidity of the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner it may raise a question of law or a mixed question of law and fact for determination. It may be open to the petitioner to show that a notice or an opportunity of hearing was given to the opposite party by the Assistant Commissioner. Alternatively, it could be urged that once a person was granted permission by the Assistant Commissioner to seek directions from the Court, then it was not necessary to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the working trustee while granting permission to another person in respect of the same cause of action. In any view of the matter, the question which is to be determined at the present stage of the case is as to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not and at such a preliminary stage it cannot be decided as to whether the permission given by the Assistant Commissioner to Bhagwandas under Section 38 of the Act is valid in law or not.
