1. The present revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order dated 19-4-2018 passed below Exh.14 in Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 2010 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bhuj by virtue of which, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC came to be rejected.

2. The case in brief is that present respondents herein who are the original plaintiffs have instituted a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 2010 for setting aside the sale deed dated 15.7.2008 and also claiming share in the property along with other incidental reliefs and also praying for permanent injunction.

3. The present petitioners, on the ground that during the subsistence of father as well as grandfather, sale deed had been executed with respect to land bearing Revenue Survey No.195/P admeasuring 5-16-00 RA of Village Ratia, Taluka Bhuj, District Kutch, have asserted that land was never ancestral property and as such, the plaintiffs being the grandsons are not entitled to seek any partition. Based upon this main premise, the written statement also came to be submitted at Exh.22 by raising dispute about the rights of the plaintiffs, dispute about the fact that this land had been partitioned during the life time of Shivji Lalji Hirani way back in 1986 and the names of the plaintiffs even thereafter were never mutated and as such, since on account of necessity, original defendant No.1 executed sale in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3, no illegality was committed and in the absence of any right, title or interest in the suit property, it was not open for the original plaintiffs to institute suit, hence, contested.

4. The said written statement had been filed but then for proving the contention, an application came to be filed for seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 mainly on the ground that suit does not disclose any cause of action and is barred by law. Without giving much description, an application came to be submitted which was opposed by the original plaintiffs and after relying upon the decision delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this High Court, the application came to be rejected vide order dated 19.4.2018 which is made the subject matter of present revision application.

5. Mr. Mehul S.Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the present petitioners has contended that the property in question was belonging to the grandfather Shivji and was partitioned during his life time in the year 1986 and as such, the suit is hopelessly time barred. Secondly, even apart from this issue of limitation, it has been contended that the original plaintiffs are the grandsons and during life of their father, they are not entitled to seek any partition and whatever transaction which has taken place is perfectly well within the authority of law and as such there is no cause of action, hence, on this count alone, the plaint be rejected. It has further been contended that the sale transaction has taken place and two of the petitioners have become bona fide purchasers and as such also, no relief can be sought with respect to sale transaction which has been validly executed. It has further been contended that suit has been filed in the month of July, 2010 and the Shivji, the grandfather has expired on 28.9.2009 after the sale having taken place and, therefore, irrespective of the claim generated by the original plaintiffs, the transaction has taken place during the life time of grandfather as well. It has further been contended that property is the self-acquired property of grandfather and, therefore, the same having been partitioned way back in 1986, the father of the plaintiffs had become absolute owner and as such is free to transact portion of land which has come in his share and further, there is no right of the plaintiffs to seek any partition or challenge the act of the father in disposing of the property. This being the position, the learned Judge ought to have rejected the plaint.

6. To