The Court emphasized the need to consider the averments made in the plaint to determine if the suit was barred under law, and concluded that there was no bar against filing the suit for the alleged non-compliance of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

1. - The present revision petition arises out of the order dated 10/2/2015 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 81/2012, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC.

2. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Amol Vyas for the petitioner that the respondent-plaintiff having failed to give notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, his suit was not maintainable. He also submitted that the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 being not applicable to the Village Bissau where the suit premises is situated, the respondent-plaintiff could not have filed the suit under the said Act seeking eviction of the petitioner.

3. The Court does not find any substance in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is needless to say that the question of jurisdiction would be a mixed question of law and fact, which could be decided only by the Court after appreciating the evidence that may be laid by the parties. For the purpose of rejection of the plaint under Clause (d) of Order 7, Rule 11 , the Court has to consider the averments made in the plaint to see whether the suit is barred under law or not. There being no bar against filing of the suit for the alleged non-compliance of the Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaint could not be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of CPC.

4. In that view of the matter, the revision petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. By this order, the stay application and other pending application, if any also stand dismissed.Petition dismissed.

*******