( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate judge, Proddatur in SR. No. 4809/95 dated 7-11-1995, rejecting the plaint of the plaintiff/ petitioner as barred by limitation.

( 2 ) AN office objection was taken that the suit was prima facie barred by the law of limitation. The matter was, therefore, posted before the Court for removal of the office objection so that the plaint could be registered and regularly numbered. The learned Judge of the lower Court rejected the plaint by recording a finding that the suit was barred by limitation without even framing a preliminary issue on the question of the suit being barred by limitation. The plaint itself contained an averment to the effect that the suit was not barred by limitation and, therefore, it was not proper to decide that issue conclusively at the threshold of the inception of the suit depriving the plaintiff the opportunity of making out his case how the suit was not barred by limitation.

( 3 ) ORDER VII Rule 6 of C. P. C. provides that in a case where the suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by law of limitation, the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed provided that the Court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption from the law of limitation on any ground not set out in the plaint if such ground is not inconsistent with the grounds set out in the plaint.

( 4 ) IN the concluding part of para 8 of the plaint, an averment with regard to the suit not having been hit by law of limitation finds place. It is pleaded in the said paragraph that the cause of action arose from the date of knowledge of fraud under Section 72 of the CONTRACT ACT, 1872 read with Section 17 of the limitation ACT, 1963, at the same time from the date of demand and refusal under article 113 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963 and that there is no bar of limitation to the suit.

( 5 ) THE above pleading in the plaint clearly shows that the requirements of Order VII Rule 6 of CPC are clearly complied with. In that view of the matter, therefore, the office objection with regard to the bar of limitation and the order passed by the Court holding that the suit was barred by limitation and directing the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff was patently devoid of jurisdiction or in other words, the learned Judge exercised the jurisdiction which was not vested in him. The entire paragraph 18 of the plaint sets out the particulars how the amount was advanced to the defendants, how it was agreed to be repaid by the defendants and how the suit claim of the plaintiff stood acknowledged from time to time. It was not necessary for the plaintiff to show in the plaint itself as to how the plaintiff proposed to prove the averments made in the plaint and through which witness and on the basis of which document, the suit claim could not be treated as having been barred by limitation. If the learned Judge had minutely gone through the contents of paragraph 8 of the plaint, he would have realised that the necessary pleadings had already been made. If, under the given facts and circumstances, there was any cause for the Court to believe that the averments were not proved and on the point of limitation itself the suit was liable to be dismissed, he should have followed the procedure prescribed by Order 14 Rule 1 of C. P. C. , which provides for settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. Under Sub-Rules (4) and (5) of Rule 1 of order 14 of CPC, it is provided as under :-" (4) Issues are of two kinds :- (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and after examination under Rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their Pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to fram