JUDGMENT :

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - Although, the matter comes up on the stay application; but, on the request of the learned Counsels for the respective parties this revision petition has been heard on its merit at this stage.

2. This revision petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants (for brevity, "the defendants") against the order dated 3.5.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sawaimadhopur (for brevity, "the learned Trial Court") in Civil Suit No. 13/2017 whereby, an application filed by them under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff') filed a suit for cancellation of decree dated 15.11.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sawaimadhopur in Civil Suit No. 3/2000 and permanent injunction. It is stated in the plaint that in the aforesaid suit filed by Shri Kamruddin, the predecessor-in interest of the defendant, against him for specific performance and permanent inunction, compromise decree dated 15.11.2000 was obtained fraudulently exerting undue pressure upon him. It is also alleged that the decree dated 15.11.2000 was in-executable and unlawful in absence of Nagar Palika/Nagar Parishad being a party in the suit. It is averred that when the plaintiff, who was in Jail in a murder case, was released, filed objection in the execution petition filed for execution of the decree dated 15.11.2000, the same came to be rejected by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 13.4.2017 which gave rise to the cause of action to challenge the decree dated 15.11.2000.

4. In the aforesaid suit, the defendants filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC stating therein that the decree dated 15.11.2000 has sought to been cancelled by the plaintiff in the suit filed as late as on 8.5.2017 whereas, limitation for seeking cancellation of the decree is three years from the date of facts entitling to the plaintiff to have the decree cancelled first became known to him. The application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 3.5.2018, impugned herein.

5. Assailing the order, learned Counsel for the defendants would submit that since, the plaintiff was a party to the decree dated 15.11.2000; it must be assumed that he was aware of it being unlawful and in-executable from the very inception; however, in any case, since, alleging it to be unlawful and executable, he had filed objection in the execution petition on 3.7.2013, the plaintiff did have knowledge of the decree liable to be cancelled on account of it being unlawful or in-executable at least on the date he filed objection in the execution petition, the suit filed by him is definitely hit by law of limitation. He, therefore, prays that the civil revision petition be allowed, the order dated 3.5.2018 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by them under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC be allowed.

6. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that since, the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on this count He, in support of his submissions, relies upon the following Judgments :-

"(1) Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat v. Inder Kumar & Ors., (2015) 4 RCR (Civil) 167.

(2) Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. The Central Bank of India & Anr., (2020) AIR (SC) 2721."

7. Heard. Considered.

8. Under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC, a plaint deserves to be rejected if from the averments contained therein, it appeal to be barred by any law. It is trite law that if from the averments contained in the plaint, it is discernible that it is hit by law of limitation, it should be rejected at the threshold. The instant suit has been filed seeking a decree for cancellation of the decree dated 15.11.2000 and permanent injunction in which, the cancellation of decree is the main relief and the decree of permanent injunction is the ancillary relief.

9. The issue before this Court