JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J. 

1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Faridabad, vide which the application filed by the defendants (except defendant No.7) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the "CPC") for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the plaintiffs (Prem Chand, Bijender, Smt. Sheela Devi and Smt. Sushila) (respondents No.1 to 4 herein) filed a suit for declaration and injunction seeking the following relief:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are owners in possession as co-sharers of 1/4th share and that plaintiffs are also owners as co-sharers of another 1/4th share and that defendants No.1 Baljeet, defendant No.4 - Mahipal and defendant No.9 Sri Pal are lessee in possession of 1/4th share under the plaintiffs in the total land measuring 1254 Kanals 4 Marlas as detailed & described in para No.1 of the plaint and that mutation No.2 of village Tajpur regarding inheritance of said Govinda as sanctioned on 26.07.1927 and lease deed for 99 years dated 04.01.1960 bearing Vasika No.27 dated 05.01.1960 executed by Smt. Baldal exceeding her 1/4th share in the abovesaid land and its mutation No.3 of village Tajpur as sanctioned on 26.02.1963 exceeding 1/4th share of Smt. Baldai and mutation No.20 of village Tajpur regarding inheritance of Smt. Baldai on the basis of false and frivolous Will dated 08.10.1980 as sanctioned on 23.11.1987 and entries in the revenue record on the basis of said mutations in favour of the defendants are totally wrong, illegal, null & void and do not create any right, title and interest in favour of the defendants and are not binding upon the plaintiffs and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from their 1/4th share in the said suit land and also from alienating % share of the plaintiffs in the said suit land as detailed and described in para No.1 of the plaint may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants alongwith costs of the suit.

Or any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiffs. "

3. The suit was opposed by the defendants by way of written statement (Annexure P-2).

4. During the pendency of the suit, an application (Annexure P-3) was moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for the rejection of plaint on the ground that Smt. Baldei had expired on 25.10.1983 and her daughter Smt. Kailash died on 14.01.2003 and she had never challenged Mutation No.2 sanctioned on 26.07.1927 during her lifetime. The plaint was also sought to be rejected on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation as it laid challenge to the lease deed dated 04.01.1960 and Mutation No.20 dated 23.11.1987 sanctioned in accordance with Will dated 08.10.1980. It was stated in the application that the plaintiffs had no cause of action to file the suit as they were not claiming inheritance directly in the property left behind by Sh. Govinda but were claiming their share through her mother, who had never challenged the aforestated transactions during her lifetime. As such it was averred that the plaintiffs had no cause of action and the suit was barred by limitation.

5. The application was opposed by way of reply (Annexure P-4), stating that the application was not maintainable and had been filed with a view to delay the proceedings. As regards limitation, it was averred that it is a mixed question of facts and law and, therefore, the plaint could not be rejected on the said ground. It was further averred that cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs, when on the basis of wrong and illegal mutations and illegal entries in the revenue record, the defendants had obtained compensation of Rabi crops 2015, which had been destroyed due to heavy rain and ha