ORDER

1. This civil revision filed u/S.115 of C.P.C. assails order dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure P/4) passed by Additional Civil Judge Class-2, Beohari, District Shahdol by which an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC preferred by defendants/petitioner herein has suffered dismissal.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission as well as on final disposal.

3. Shri Ashok Jain, leaned counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that impugned order of learned trial Judge is essentially non speaking in as much as failing to consider the objection of defendants regarding court fee and limitation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon 2010 (1) MPLJ 50 (Israt Jahan vs. Rajia Begum & Others) and order dated 01.11.2017 passed by Single Bench of this Court at Indore in Civil Revision No.88/2017 (Anita Jain vs. Dilip Kumar & Another).

4. In a suit instituted by non applicant No.1, 2 and 3 claiming a decree of title over 3/4th share of disputed property, seeking annulment of two sale deeds dated 04.012008 and 15.04.2008 and a presumptive decree of possession in case there is construction made by the defendants pendente lite, an application dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure P/2) under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC came to be filed by the defendants/petitioner herein.

4.1 The application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reveals that first objection taken was that proper evaluation of suit has not been made qua relief concerning decree of ownership of 3/4th share of property in question. The second objection was that since two sale deeds were sought to be declared void ab initio, ad valorem court fee was not paid.

4.2 Pertinently objection regarding limitation was not raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, but has been orally raised by learned counsel for defendants/petitioner herein before this Court.

4.3 The Trial Court while dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC held that since none of three plaintiffs are party in the impugned sale deeds, the need to pay ad valorem court fee in regard to relief of declaring these deeds as null and void gets obviated. The Trial Court also held that as regards prayer seeking possession is concerned, nature of this relief sought is presumptive in nature. The Court therefore held that valuation made and court fee paid in respect of prayer made in the plaint based on its averments is in line with the requirements of law.

5. After having heard learned counsel for rival parties and perused the findings recorded in the impugned order, it is obvious that the view taken by learned trial Judge cannot be termed to be suffering from jurisdictional error. In the given facts and circumstances, averments in the plaint and the relief sought, the valuation and court fee was in line with legal requirements.

5.1 Even otherwise, the kind of objections raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC (deficient valuation and court fee) would not have led to dismissal of suit, if the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was allowed. That being so, civil revision would not lie in view of bar contained in proviso to Section 115 of CPC.

6. In regard to objection of limitation raised by learned counsel for the defendants/petitioner herein by submitting that the same is pure question of law, which can very well be raised before this Court, even if not raised before the Trial Court, it is pertinent to note that ordinarily question of limitation is a mix question of law and facts, and therefore, ought to be left for being adjudicated during trial.

7. In the conspectus of above discussion, this Court declines interference in the present civil revision and leaves it to the petitioner to raise the question of limitation in shape of issue to be adjudicated during trial. Accordingly, present civil revision stands dismissed.

8. In view of aforesaid order where this Court does not find present civil revision to be maintainable, the need to discuss t