ORDER

1. The petitioners by way of this civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seek setting aside of the order dated 19.6.2019 (AnnexureA/1) passed by learned 12th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in RCSA No.8797/2018, rejecting an application under Order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioners herein as the defendants to the said suit seeking rejection of the suit was declined with it having been observed that at this stage it cannot be held that the suit does not have sufficient cause of action.

2. At the outset, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts of the case. Original plaintiff Vijay Kumar Nagpal / respondent No.1 herein, had filed a civil suit bearing. RCSA No. 8797/2018 before the learned trial Court praying for declaration and permanent injunction over the property of Nagpal Timber (herein after referred to as ‘the firm’) and also for restraining the defendants / petitioners herein from alienating the same, on the ground that his father had invested the entire capital for establishing the firm and as soon as he attained the age of majority he was inducted as a partner in the firm. That over the years the firm grew and purchased various properties, therefore, he being a partner in the firm is entitled to 1/4th share in the various properties purchased by the firm. It has also been averred in the suit that the defendant No.1 – petitioner herein in connivance with the revenue authorities, illegally got whole of the suit property mutated in his name and in the name of his wife. The suit property was purchased from the income of the family firm in which the plaintiff was also a partner. Now, the petitioner is trying to sell off the said property.

3. After notice being served, the petitioners appeared before the trial Court and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that insufficient Court fee has been paid as he was required to pay court fee on the basis of the valuation of relief of declaration and the suit is also barred by limitation. The petitioners and the respondents both have been heard qua the application. However, the learned trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application. Hence, the petitioners before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants argued that the impugned order passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind and based on presumption. The trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction over the property of the firm after lapse of more than 42 years. Thus, the suit is barred by limitation. Further on perusal of the plaint it does not clearly appear that when the cause of action arose. Learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff had clear knowledge regarding working of the firm and also regarding dissolution of partnership firm and the plaintiff had not taken any objections regarding the working / dissolution of the firm at any point of time before filing of the present suit but conveniently choose not to take any action for 42 years. On these grounds, learned counsel has prayed that the civil revision be allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 19.6.2019.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No1. / plaintiff refuting the aforesaid contentions, argued in support of the order passed by the trial court. Further averred that the cause of action arose when the plaintiff came to know that the petitioner No.1 is trying to alienate the suit property and has also got the whole property mutated in his name and when respondent no.1 claimed his share in March, 2018 was out-rightly denied. It is well settled in law that at the time of consideration of an application only and only the plaint averments are to be looked into. Whether a civil suit discloses a cause of action or not in the light of the disputed facts raised by the defendants can be