JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

1. Defendants (Onkar Singh and others) assail the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') was only partly allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the respondent-plaintiffs (Surinder Singh and others) instituted a suit (Annexure P.1) for possession of land measuring 11 kanals 6 marlas (fully described in the plaint) situated within the revenue estate of village Walla, Tehsil and District Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). A declaration was also sought to the effect that mutation No. 5364 as regards transfer of the suit property from the name of Kuldeep Singh (father of the plaintiffs) in the names of the defendants on the basis of some sale deed, was wrong, illegal, null and void and that the sale deed, if any, was a forged, fabricated and void document, which was liable to be set aside. Transfer of the suit property by defendants No. 1 to 3 to defendant Nos. 4 to 6, was also stated to be illegal.

3. It was averred in the suit that the suit property was originally owned by Harbans Singh, who had expired on 10.09.1990. He was the grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendant No.7 (Jagjit Singh). During his lifetime, Harbans Singh, had executed a registered Will dated 13.03.1989 in favour of the plaintiffs; defendant No. 7 and Kuldeep Singh (father of the plaintiffs) in equal shares i.e., 1/5th share each. After the death of Harbans Singh, his property was inherited by the plaintiffs; defendant No.7 and Kuldeep Singh and mutation was also sanctioned.

4. Kuldeep Singh is stated to have expired on 27.12.1991. It was averred that when on 28.05.2018, the plaintiffs obtained a copy of the jamabandi for the year 2010-11, they found their names to be missing from the revenue record. Upon inquiry, they came to know that mutation No. 5364 had been got sanctioned illegally by defendants No. 1 to 3 in their favour on the basis of some sale deed dated 30.04.1990 alleged to have been executed by Kuldeep Singh. It was averred that Kuldeep Singh had never executed any such sale deed and that the same was a forged and fabricated document.

5 The suit was opposed by the defendants. Defendants No. 4 to 6 filed their written statement (Annexure P.2), wherein it was stated that the sale deed executed by Kuldeep Singh was dated 30.11.1990 and not 30.04.1990. It was averred that the suit was barred by limitation as the same had been filed after 28 years from the execution of the sale deed. Other preliminary objections as regards maintainability; locus standi; the suit having not been valued properly for the purpose of Court fee; estoppel etc., were also raised. It was also averred that defendants No. 4 to 6 were bona fide purchasers for consideration of land measuring 4 kanals 8 marlas and 6 kanals 18 marlas, which had been sold to them vide registered sale deed dated 08.10.2007.

6. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P.3) was moved by defendants No. 4 to 6 for rejection of the plaint on the ground of advalorem Court fee having not been paid as also on the ground of limitation.

7. The application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P.4), wherein it was averred that earlier also two applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had been dismissed on 03.08.2019 and 05.12.2019, respectively. It was averred that limitation was a mixed question of law and facts and further the plaintiffs were not bound to affix advalorem Court fee.

8. By way of the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the application in part and directed the plaintiffs to affix advalorem Court fee. However, as regards limitation, it was observed that the same was a mixed question of law and facts and, therefore, the plaint could not be rejected on the said ground.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the pa