1. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.830/2007 on the file of Fast Track Court, Devanahalli, have come up in this petition impugning the order dated 03.01.2013 passed on I.A.No.10 filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. In this proceedings for the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their rank in the Original Suit. Plaintiff in the Court below is admittedly elder brother of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Admitted facts are that the plaintiff purchased suit schedule property under a registered Sale Deed dated 11.03.1992. The said Sale Deed was executed in his favour with first defendant representing him as his Power of Attorney Holder representing in the said transaction. According to plaintiff, suit schedule property was under supervision of his younger brother, 1st defendant. It is only in the year 2004 he came to know that some fraud is committed by 1st defendant in clandestinely conveying the same from his name to the name of his another brother, namely second defendant in the Court below. The said transaction has taken place in collusion with defendant Nos.1 and 2. In this behalf, a notice was sent by him through his counsel from his native place Barmer, Rajasthan. The said notice is duly replied by first and second defendants.

3. According to plaintiff, he came to know about the sale transaction dated 26.03.1994 in conveying the suit schedule property by 1st defendant as his Power of Attorney Holder in favour of 2nd defendant has come to his knowledge only after receiving reply from the 1st and 2nd defendants. It is stated that subsequently there were negotiations between himself and 1st and 2nd defendants through their well wishers for negotiated settlement of dispute between themselves. In the meanwhile, another document came to be executed by 2nd defendant in favour of his son, 3rd defendant, in the form of a Gift Deed conveying suit schedule property in favour of 3rd defendant.

4. Admittedly in the suit which is filed, the prayer is for declaration on the ground that the Sale Deed dated 26.03.1994 and Gift Deed dated 22.06.2005 have come into place fraudulently with the connivance of defendants without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Hence a declaration is sought.

5. In the said proceedings, defendants entered appearance, filed their Written Statement denying the plaint averments. Issues are framed on 02.04.2012. Subsequently when the matter was posted for evidence of plaintiff, he filed his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit on 18.03.2010 pursuant to which oral evidence was also adduced for marking the said affidavit and other documents on 02.07.2012. Thereafter the suit was set down for cross examination of P.W.1, i.e., plaintiff. At that stage the present application in I.A.No.10 is filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that prima facie the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation in as much as the averments in Para 6 and the contents of legal notice dated 16.08.2004 indicate that the plaintiff had knowledge of this transaction way back in July, 2004. In that view of the matter, the suit which is filed on 20.08.2007 is prima facie barred by law of limitation, therefore no purpose would be served in trying the time barred suit, question of adducing evidence therein and deciding the issues other than the one which is framed regarding limitation would be an exercise in futility.

6. To the said application in I.A.No.10, plaintiff filed objections. After hearing both parties, the said application came to be dismissed by the Court below by its order dated 03.01.2013, which is impugned in this revision petition on the ground that there is error on the part of the Court below in not appreciating the pleadings in right perspective, not looking into the admission which are there in Para 6 of the plaint and not looking specifically at Para 10 of the plaint, which is not properly appreciated by t