ORDER :

1. By way of this Civil Revision Application, the applicants have challenged the order dated 10.1.2023 passed by learned Principal Civil Judge, Barwala, on application below Exh.27 under Order 7 Rule 11 in Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 2022.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ravi Pahwa appearing for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. Vicky B. Mehta appearing of the respondent-Original plaintiff.

3. The applicants herein are the original defendants No. 5 to 20 in Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 2022.

4. The original plaintiff is the respondent No. 1 here before this Court.

5. The original plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 2022 claiming adverse possession and thereby prayed for execution of sale deed and for permanent injunction.

6. The case of the original plaintiff before the trial Court was that the plaintiff is residing at the premises stated in the Cause Title since last around 35 years and he has constructed two storied building since last more than 35 years. Birth of his children also took place in the said premises only and all the documents etc. barring the address which is mentioned in the Cause Title. Though, as the society is an unregistered society, the other members of the society are harassing the original plaintiff and therefore, by using their influence, they got a notice for demolition issued by Barwala Municipality on the ground of unauthorized constructions. The plaint states that the cause of action has arisen because the plaintiff purchased the property in question since last more than 35 years by paying a consideration of Rs.10,000/- from one Manjibhai Dalabhai Patel, who was to execute a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff but as the said Manjibhai Dalabhai Patel expired, the legal heirs started residing at Botad and though they were ready and willing to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff, it is because of insistence of defendant Nos.5 to 20 - present applicants that they did not execute the Sale Deed in favour of the applicants and that is how according to the plaintiff the cause of action to file the suit has arisen.

7. Once the suit was filed and summons was issued, the present applicants appeared in the said suit and filed one page application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

8. The application was preferred on two grounds:

(i) that the property in question has not been valid properly and therefore, for the purpose of jurisdictions, the suit has not been valued properly.

(ii) The contentions raised in that application under Order 7 Rule 11 was that the suit is barred by limitation.

9. Except for the aforesaid two grounds, the application was not preferred canvassing any other grounds.

10. The application was heard by learned Principal Civil Judge, Barwala and an order below Exh.27 was passed on 10.1.2023 rejecting the application on the ground that the aspect of limitation is a triable issue and as the suit is for specific performance and permanent injunction on the basis of adverse possession, the evidence is required to be laid by going on with the trial.

11. The aforesaid order is under challenged by way of present Civil Revision Application.

12. Learned advocate Mr. Ravi Pahwa appearing for the applicants vehemently challenged the impugned order and submitted that in a suit for adverse possession as held by Delhi High Court in case of Raunak Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others wherein reliance is placed upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India, 2004 SCC Online SC 505.

13. Learned advocate Mr. Ravi Pahwa contended that as per the judgment in case of Karnataka Board of Wakf (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down four parameters that (a) if a person claims adverse possession then he is required to show on what date he came into possession; (b) what was the nature of possession; (c) Whether the factum of possession was known to the other party and (d) How long his poss