By the Court.—Heard Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sanjay Kumar Pundir, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff Sushant Kumar and another against the judgment and and order dated 11th February, 2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Saharanpur in Original Suit No. 346 of 2013 (Sushant Kumar and others v. Rajeshwar and others).

3. The facts in short leading to the present appeal are as follows:

4. An agreement to sell was executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Rajeshwar, Umesh alias Chhota and Smt. Rammurti Devi in favour of Sushant Kumar and Rampal on 27th January, 2006. Under the agreement to sell, it was agreed that the defendants would sell their property in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-. The plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- shall be paid at the time of registry of the sale-deed. The time limit fixed under the agreement to sell for execution of the sale-deed was one year. Since the defendants refused to execute the sale-deed, the plaintiffs instituted Original Suit No. 346 of 2013 with the following prayer:

**v- }kjk fMdzh rdehy eqgk;nk cS; cgd oknhx.k f[kykQ] izfroknh x.k la[;k 1 rk 3 izfroknhx.kl 1 rk 3@izfroknhx.k dks funsZ”k fn;k tkos fd os U;k;ky; }kjk fu;r vof/k ds vUrxZr lEifRr fuEufyf[kr dk cSukek oknhx.k ds gd esa rgjhj o rdehy dj djkdj iathd`r djkos vkSj cfd;k tjs leu cSukesa ds iathdj.k ds le; olwy dj ys vkSj lEifRr fuEufyf[kr ij dCtk okdbZ oknhx.kl dk djk ns olwjr jgus dkflj izfroknhx.k] izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk Loa; oknhx.kl ds gd esa lEifRr fuEufyf[kr rgjhj o rdehy dj djkdj iathd`r djk;k tkos vksj ml lwjr es cfd;k tjs leu ekuh; U;k;ky; esa oknhx.k ls tek djk fn;k tkos vkSj dCtk okdbZ lEifRr fuEufyf[kr ij oknhx.k dk ctfj;s vehu vnkyr djk;k tkosA

c- [kpkZ okn oknhx.kl dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;sA

l- vU; vuqrks"k tks jk; vnkyr esa mfpr cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k gks iznku dh tkosA**

5. The defendants of the suit filed their objections and amongst others, submitted that the suit was barred by limitation and therefore, the plaint may be rejected in view of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. The trial Court framed a specific issue for the said purpose being issue No. 4. The trial Court vide judgment and order impugned dated 11th February, 2016, has decided the issue against the plaintiffs and rejected the plaint, as it has been found that the suit was barred by limitation. It is against this judgment and order that the present appeal has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging the order passed by the trial Court submitted that the plaint allegations are to be read as a whole and the period of limitation has to be determined with reference to the various paragraphs of the plaint and not one para alone is to be read in isolation. In support whereof, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, 2007 (10) SCC 59. Reference is also made to another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. Mohan Lal and others, passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 788-789 of 2016 decided on 29th January, 2016 reported in 2016 (2) Scale 571 for the same proposition. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Popat & Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, 2005 (7) SCC 510. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sunni Central Waqf Board v. Gopal Ingh Vishrad, 1991 AIR (All) 89.

8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have examined the records of the present first appeal.

9. The trial Court under the judgment impugned has specifically recorded that under the agreement to sell the period pre