S.L. Bhayana, J.

1. By this order, I propose to dispose of LA No. 12351/2007 filed by Defendant No.1, 8 and 10 under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 read with section 151 of CPC, thereby seeking rejection of plaint itself on the issue of limitation and court fee.

2. Plaintiff has filed the instant suit thereby seeking relief for partition, cancellation, ratification, injunction and rendition of accounts and the relief of cancellation of documents pertaining to agreement to sell dated 21.4.2006 executed between Defendant No.8 & 10, which was later on dropped by the plaintiffs by seeking liberty from this court vide order dated 30th May 2007.

3. Two short issues arise for adjudication in this application; firstly whether the instant suit is barred by limitation and whether the suit is liable to be rejected as the sufficient court fee has not been paid;

4. To support this application learned counsel for the Defendant argued that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as it comes from the plaintiffs mouth itself that Defendant No.1 tried to avoid the partition on one pretext or the other after the demise of Shri Ram Prakash Babar on 13.10.1986 and from the aforesaid averment made in the paras 8 & 10 of the plaint there is unequivocal inference that plaintiffs had asked for the partition at the time of demise of their father i.e. on 13.10.1986 and present suit for partition had been filed on 19.4.2007. In view of scope of Article 113 of Limitation Act the present action is hopelessly barred by limitation.

5. On the issue of court fees, learned counsel of Defendants argued that plaintiffs have intentionally dropped the relief of cancellation of registered document of agreement to sell dated 21.4.2005 leaving the present plaint hopelessly under valued, thereby attracting the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 & 11 and Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C.

6. On the issue of Limitation, learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon: .

(a) Maha Singh v. Anand Singh, 156(2009) DLT 67: 2005 (79) DRJ 188 (b) On the issue of Court Fees learned counsel for the defendants has relied upon the following judgments:

Jugal Kishore v. Des Raj Seth, (4) 1078 DLT 571, Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, AIR 1999 P&H 121 and Md. Noorul Hoda v. Bibi Ralfunnisa & Ors., 1995 (9) SC 256

7. On the other hand, while opposing the present application-learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that present application is misconceived, vexatious and without any merits because power to reject the -plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. can be exercised only if the plaint does not disclose any cause of action which can be entertained by the civil court.

8. In order to refute the argument of intentionally deleting the relief of cancellation of documents, learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that plaintiffs have been allowed the same by this court vide order dated 30.5.2007 and therefore this argument has no leg to stand.

9. Further in order to buttress his argument on the issue of Limitation, learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that this is a suit for partition and the limitation for such suit as provided in the Limitation Act is 12 years and therefore this suit is well within time as per Article 110 of the Limitation Act.

10. On the issue of court fees, learned counsel for the plaintiffs have argued that plaintiffs have properly paid the court fees according to his share in the properties.

11. To support his case, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has relied upon the following judgments:(a) On the issue of limitation:

(i) C. Natarajan v. Ashim Bai & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 363 (b) On the issue of court fees:

(i) C. Rehman Mir v. Rehman Mir & Ors., AIR 1965 J&K 33

(ii) Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. v. Owners & Parties Vessel M.U. Fortune Express & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1828

(iii) Sham Dass Chawla v. DDA, DLT (3) 593

(iv) Sudersham Kumar Seth v. Pawan Kumar, 124(2005) DLT305 (v) Chhotelal v. Ansal Housing & Estate Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2002 P&H 302 .

(vi) Nisheet Bhalla & Ors. v.