1. By this revision, petitioner is challenging the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangrampur in Regular Civil Suit No.17/2012, thereby rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Facts, which are relevant, for deciding this revision can be stated, in, brief as follows:

The suit property which is a agricultural land was originally owned by the father of respondent No.2. On 08.05.1973, the father of respondent No.2 entered into an agreement to sell the said property to respondent No.1 and his mother Subhdrabai for a consideration of Rs.1,375/. The sale-deed was to be executed after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority.

3. Thereafter in the year 1995 respondent No.2 filed a suit for possession against the respondent No.1 bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 35/1985. The said suit came to be dismissed on 23.05.1993, and the appeal preferred against the judgment and order, bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.17/1993, came to be dismissed on 06.11.1998. Thereafter, several years, respondent No.1 filed a suit against the respondent No.2, bearing Regular Civil Suit No.12/2011, which came to be withdrawn with liberty to file a separate suit on the same cause of action, and then the suit No.17/2012 came to be filed for specific performance of the agreement dated 08.05.1973.

4. Meanwhile the suit property was purchased by the petitioner from respondent No.2 on 10.02.2011, vide registered sale-deed for a total consideration of Rs.2,30,000/-. The petitioner therefore, appeared in the suit and filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on two grounds, firstly that the Court fee stamp is not paid properly and, secondly on the count that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 26.06.2012 allowed the said application partly, directing respondent No.1 to pay the Court fee as per the valuation of the suit property. However, as regards the petitioner's prayer relating to framing of preliminary issue on the aspect of limitation, the Trial Court did not pass any order. The applicant has therefore, filed Civil Revision Application No.64/2013 in this Court, which was allowed by this Court, vide its judgment and order dated 17.09.2013. It was specifically held by this Court that prima facie it appears that the issue whether the Civil Court can entertain the suit beyond the period of limitation goes to the root of the matter and the said issue being one of jurisdiction, it should be tried as a preliminary issue. The Trial Court was accordingly directed to frame an issue of limitation and to decide the same as preliminary issue.

5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Trial Court framed the issue of limitation as preliminary issue and decided the same vide its impugned order dated 17.02.2014, holding that the suit is within limitation and hence, maintainable.

6. This order of the Trial Court is challenged in this revision by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the said order cannot survive or cannot be called as legal and valid, having regard to the long line of earlier litigation. It is submitted that as per the averment made in the clause relating to the limitation, as to the cause of action for filing the suit, it was specifically stated that the cause of action arose on 08.05.1973 i.e. on the date of alleged agreement to sell and thereafter it arose on 23.02.1993 and 06.11.1998 on dismissal of the suit and the appeal respectively. Lastly, it arose on 24.01.2011, when the respondent No.2 sold the suit property to the petitioner. It is submitted that even this averment in the plaint, as made by the respondent No.1 makes it clear that the suit was apparently barred by limitation. It is urged that the Trial Court has therefore, committed an error in holding that the suit is within the limitation. According to learned counsel for the pet