Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By this application the defendant No.1 seeks rejection of the plaint, inter alia, on the grounds that the suit is barred by limitation and has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fees.

2. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submits that even as per Para 11 of the plaint it is evident that the defendant No.1 applied for anticipatory bail before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House wherein vide order dated 31st July, 2006 and 7th August, 2006 reference is made to the general power of attorney and sale deed. As per the plaint even assuming that the plaintiffs did not have knowledge of the alleged forgery and fabrication when the FIR was got registered on 22nd July, 2006 they had sufficient knowledge and evidence of the alleged forgery on 31st July, 2006 and 7th August, 2006. The present suit was instituted on 22nd September, 2009 i.e. much beyond the period of limitation of three years. Even in the plaint in Para 27 the plaintiffs have alleged that the cause of action for filing the suit firstly arose on 21st July, 2006 and taking the case of the plaintiffs as it is the suit was filed beyond three years of the cause of acti