A suit is not barred by law merely because it is barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT

P.K. Lohra, J. - By the instant revision petition, petitioner-defendants have assailed order dated 23rd of January, 2018, passed by Addl. Civil Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), rejecting their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, in a suit filed by plaintiff-respondents for permanent injunction and cancellation of sale-deeds dated 26th of December, 1970 & 10th of November, 1981.

2. Facts in brief, giving rise to this revision petition are that respondent-plaintiffs filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of sale-deeds dated 26th of December, 1970 and 10th of November, 1981 respectively. It is, inter-alia, averred in the plaint that Bheru Singh owned a property in Jodhpur known as Bheru Vilas, which after his death is inherited by his daughter Ms. Amar Kanwar. Later on, in respect of the said property Ms. Amar Kanwar executed a Will dated 22nd of February, 1961 in favour of Lalit Singh and Himmat Singh, sons of Ms. Sheela Kumari (daughter of Ms. Amar Kanwar) and therefore, they became owner of the said property. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the impugned sale-deeds are executed by defendant No. 3 without there being any authority under the law. A fact is also averred that defendant No. l & 2 were aware about forged sale-deeds but this fact was concealed by them for quite some time inasmuch as no endeavour was made by them to raise any construction over the suit property. For showing cause of action, it is further averred that on 28th of July, 2016 when power of attorney of plaintiffs went on the site, he noticed that defendant No.5 was trying to illegally encroach the land in question and thereupon an FIR No.237/2016 was lodged. With these averments, plaintiffs through their power of attorney filed the suit for the aforementioned reliefs.

3. Upon service of summons, defendant-petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint inter-alia on the ground that suit is barred by law. The entire edifice of petitioner-defendants' assertion was that cause of action in the matter accrued more than 4 1/2 decades back and therefore suit is barred by limitation and merits rejection at the threshold under clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. The application is contested by the plaintiff-respondents by filing their reply.

4. The learned trial Court, after examining the matter, recorded its finding in the impugned order that question relating to limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which can only be decided after recording evidence of rival parties. This entailed rejection of the application of the petitioners by the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other materials available on record.

5. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has empowered a civil court to reject a plaint at the threshold in certain contingencies. In all, six grounds are set out under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. The application filed by the petitioner-defendants was based on clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC, i.e., "where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by law". The power to reject a plaint at the threshold is extraordinary power which is to be exercised very sparingly. Here, in the instant case, essentially the petitioners have not pleaded that suit is barred by law before a civil court but their assertion was that same is barred by limitation. In normal circumstances, a question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact but if a bare reading of the plaint transpires that suit is barred by limitation, the same can be treated as a suit barred by law.

6. Law is trite that for deciding an application under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC, more particularly, while invoking clause (a) & (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC, it is necessary for the Court to examine the plaint as a whole and find out upon meaningful construction of the pleadings as to whether it is disclosi