The court held that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, necessitating a full trial for resolution.

ORDER :

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in O.S. No.185 of 2025, dated 14.11.2025.

2. Heard Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.C.T.Perumal, learned Counsel for the respondent.

3. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, has filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.185 of 2025 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, against the petitioner herein. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2023 under Order VII Rule (d) CPC to reject the plaint claiming title by way of a sale deed of the year 1991 and that the suit cannot be maintainable on the ground of limitation. The trial Court, vide impugned order, dated 14.11.2025, had dismissed the said application on the ground that the grounds raised by the petitioner can be decided only at the time of trial and the grounds are all triable in nature. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is the subsequent purchaser from his predecessor-in-title by name, one A.Natarajan Pillai, who is the brother of the plaintiff. Both the brothers have derived their shares pursuant to a Will, dated 18.01.1965 by their father, K.Arunachalam Pillai. The defendant later purchased the suit schedule property from the brother of the plaintiff, A.Natarajan Pillai. In the plaint, there is a variation with regard to the description and more over, when the property was purchased by the revision petitioner, who had carried a clear title, in the year 1991, the suit filed after a lapse of 34 years is not maintainable and is barred by law of limitation. He also submitted that the trial Court without even considering the averments made in the application filed to reject the plaint, has erroneously dismissed the said application, which needs interference of this Court.

5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:

(1) The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 15 SCC 675, in the case of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others – vs- Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“40. At this juncture, we wish to observe that we are not unmindful of the position of law that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question of rejecting the plaint on that score has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record. However, in cases like this, where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the trial court. We again place it on record that this is not a case where any forgery or fabrication is committed which had recently come to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Rather, the plaintiff and his predecessors did not take any steps to assert their title and rights in time. The alleged cause of action is also found to be creation of fiction.

41. However, the trial court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order 7 Rule 11(d)CPC. The High Court also erred in affirming the same, keeping the question of limitation open to be considered by the trial court after considering the evidence along with other issues, without deciding the core issue on the basis of the averments made by Respondent 1 in the plaint as mandated by Order 7 Rule 11(d)CPC. The spirit and intention of Order 7 Rule 11(d)CPC is only