JUDGMENT :

Prateek Jalan, J.

1. The revisionist challenges an order dated 09.05.2016 by which his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as "CPC"] was dismissed. The main ground urged in the application under Order VII Rule 11 was that the suit filed by the respondent no. 1 herein (CS No. 42/2016) was barred by limitation.

2. The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 had, in the year 2005, filed suit no. 264/05/2012 against the revisionist and others for permanent injunction, claiming to be the owner of land of approximately 1,000 sq. yards in village Karawal Nagar, Delhi. That suit was dismissed by a judgment of the Civil Judge dated 09.10.2015. The ground of dismissal was that the suit for injunction simplicitor was not an appropriate proceeding in which complicated questions of title could be decided. The learned Civil Judge relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594. In the said judgment the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 21(c) as follows:-

"(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue r