The court emphasized that the plaint can be rejected based on its own averments and not the defendant's defense or documents, and considering the plaintiff's previous revenue suit at this stage would be against the law.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12/9/2019 passed by Civil Judge, Bar, District Pali, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction. The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC inter alia claiming that the suit was barred by limitation. It was inter alia alleged in the application that as the plaintiff had earlier filed a revenue suit under Section 188 of the Tenancy Act, 1955 (the Act, 1955'), which aspect has not been disclosed in the suit, from the averments made in the said revenue suit it is apparent that the suit was barred by limitation and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

3. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC provides that the plaint can be rejected based on the averments made in the plaint and none of the documents sought to be relied on by the defendant can be taken into consideration and that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and consequently rejected the application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application inasmuch as filing of the suit before the revenue court and averments made therein were apparent and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected as barred by limitation.

5. Submissions were made that merely because the plaintiff did not disclose the said aspect in the suit cannot be a reason to reject the application.

6. Reliance was placed on Dinesh Parmer & Anr. vs. Smt. Usha Sharma & Anr. : 2016 (3) RLW (Raj.) 2428 and Annant Pal Singh Rajput vs. Sumer Singh Rajput & Anr. : 2017 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 1).

7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. The provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC are clear, wherein, a plaint can be rejected 'where the suit appears from the statement made in the plaint to be barred by any law'. It is well settled that while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC it is the plaint only, which can be looked into and not the defense of the defendant and/or the documents of the defendant for the purpose of deciding as to whether the suit was barred by law.

10. Admittedly, the defendant-petitioner seeks the court to take into consideration the plaint said to have been filed by the plaintiff before the revenue court and the averments made therein for reaching the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. Taking into consideration the said plaint at the stage of consideration of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC would be ex facie against the letter of law and settled law on the said aspect and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised by the respondent in this regard cannot be countenanced.

11. So far as the reliance placed on the judgments in the case of Annant Pal Singh Rajput (supra) and Dinesh Parmar (supra) are concerned, said judgments were delivered on peculiar facts of the said cases and have no application to the facts of the present case.

12. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.