CHOUTHARAM Vs. PRAKASCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12/9/2019 passed by Civil Judge, Bar, District Pali, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

(2.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction. The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC inter alia claiming that the suit was barred by limitation. It was inter alia alleged in the application that as the plaintiff had earlier filed a revenue suit under Section 188 of the Tenancy Act, 1955 ( the Act, 1955'), which aspect has not been disclosed in the suit, from the averments made in the said revenue suit it is apparent that the suit was barred by limitation and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

(3.) The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC provides that the plaint can be rejected based on the averments made in the plaint and none of the documents sought to be relied on by the defendant can be taken into consideration and that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact and consequently rejected the application.