Vijay Bishnoi, J.

This civil revision has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Regular Civil Case No. 31/2015 (53/2015), whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners before the trial court and sought declaration to the effect that the petitioner No. 1 – Gurpreet Singh is not the adopted son of Sardar Mohinder Singh and the petitioner No. 1 and Gurpreet Singh S/o Sardar Mohinder Singh are two different persons and the so called power of attorney dated 07.03.2005 be declared as nonest and void against her. The respondent also sought a permanent injunction to the effect that the petitioner No. 1 be restrained from declaring himself as adopted son of Sardar Mohinder Singh and be also restrained from taking any action on the basis of the power of attorney dated 07.03.2005 against her.

3. The petitioners filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC with a prayer for rejecting the plaint filed by the respondent on the ground that the suit filed by the respondent is ex-facie time barred and the allegations levelled in the suit are vexatious, bogus and merit-less. It is also contended that several litigations between the petitioners and the respondent are pending in the revenue as well as the criminal Courts, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent be dismissed at the threshold.

4. The respondent filed reply to the application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and prayed that the application be rejected.

5. The trial court, after hearing counsel for the parties, has rejected the application filed by the petitioners vide impugned order while observing that the respondent has filed the suit essentially with a prayer that a declaration be issued to the effect that the petitioner No. 1 is not the adopted son of Sardar Mohinder Singh and the said declaration can only be issued by a civil court and not by a revenue or criminal Court. The trial court has further observed that so far as the contention of petitioners that the suit is ex-facie barred by limitation is concerned, the same is also not acceptable because the respondent in her plaint has specifically come with the case that cause of action to file the suit arose to her in January 2015 only. The trial court is also of the opinion that from perusal of the plaint as a whole, it cannot be said that the pleadings are vexatious, bogus and merit-less and, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent cannot be dismissed on this ground.

6. Assailing the validity of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the averment made in the plaint, it is clear that the respondent came to know about the power of attorney dated 07.03.2005 in the year 2012 itself and admittedly she has filed the suit after three years from the date of knowledge of the said power of attorney and, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent is exfacie time barred. It is contended that the trial court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and illegally rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. It is also argued that the pleadings contained in the plaint filed by the respondent are vexatious, bogus and merit-less but the trial court has wrongly observed that the pleadings are not vexatious, bogus and merit-less. It is also argued that the respondent has filed a suit when the petitioners have initiated criminal proceedings against her, however, the trial court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter.

7. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in T