JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This revision has been directed against the order dated 30.8.1990, passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 1376/88, whereby the application of the petitioner submitted under O. 7, R. 11, C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner the RSEB (for short the Board), with the allegations that he was initially appointed vide order No. 19 dated 30.3.1952, as Asstt. Engineer, Grade A; promoted on the post of Executive Engineer, vide order dated 24.4.1960 and confirmed on the said post vide order dated 29.12.1965, that on 17.4.73 Mr. M.S. Bika, who was junior to the non-petitioner was promoted on adhoc and temporary basis as Executive Engineer but his case was not considered. It was further alleged that vide order dated 29.9.1973, Shri B.D. Vijay, who was junior to the non-petitioner was temporarily promoted but at that time also the case of the non-petitioner was not considered. It was further mentioned that vide order dated 11.2.1975, seven junior executive engineers were promoted on adhoc basis but the case of the non-petitioners was not considered for promotion. It was also mentioned that a Departmental Promotion Committee (for short the 'D.P.C.') was held from Feb. 1975 to May, 1975, in order to promote 13 Supdt. Engineers but again his case was not taken into consideration. The Board in its 220th meeting held on 20.6.75, approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee. It was also decided that the case of the plaintiff non petitioner may be reconsidered within one year but his case was never considered inspite of the resolution passed in the aforesaid meeting of the Board though the case of Sh. D.S. Bhargava was considered later on. 3. In Para No. 19, it was further mentioned that on the basis of recommendations of the D.P.C. he was promoted as Supdt. Engineer vide order dated 23.5.81. The plaintiff retired on 31.10.87 after attaining age of superannuation. In Para No. 20 of the plaint, it has been mentioned that the Board did not implement the resolution passed in its 220th meeting dated 20.6.75. Had the said resolution been implemented, the non-petitioner would have become Addl. Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer by this time. The plaintiff retired on 31.10.87 after attaining age of superannuation. In Para No. 20 of the plaint, it has been mentioned that the Board did not implement the resolution passed in its 220th meeting dated 20.6.75. Had the said resolution been implemented, the non-petitioner would have become Addl. Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer by this time. The non-petitioner was given assurance from time to time by the Board but he was never promoted. After retirement, he met the Chairman and Secretary of the Board and they assured him all benefits but he was never given benefits. In Para No. 23, it was specifically mentioned that the assurance given by the aforesaid persons came to an end when they issued an office order No. 1541 dated 4.4.88, in which the junior persons were shown as senior to the plaintiff non-petitioner. The plaintiff non-petitioner served last representation on 18.8.88 but the Board did not reply the same. In Para No. 26, the plaintiff non-petitioner mentioned that the cause of action for the suit arose on 4.4.1988. The plaintiff non-petitioner prayed as under : ( d ) " fd oknh lu~ 1975 ls gh cksMZ dh 220oha fefVax fnukad 20-6-1975 ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk ds in ij inuks=fr vius dfu"B Jh ,e ,l Nhdk vkSj ch0Mh0 fot; vkfn ds vuqlkj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS vkSj izfroknhx.k dks tfj;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk }kjk ikcUn fd;k tkosa fd os oknh dks cksMZ dh 220oha fefVax ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj ml le; dh ofj"Brk ekinaM ds vuqlkj dUlhMj dj vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, mldks vkfFkZd ykHk o inksUufr ds ykHk ( mi eq[; vfHk;Urk] vfrfjDr eq[; vfHk;Urk ,oa eq[; vfHk;Urk ) ds in ds ykHk tc tc muds dfu"Bksa dks fn;s] rc ls fnyok;k tkosaA ( [k ) [kpkZ eqdnek fnyok;k tkosaA ( x ) vU; lgk;rk tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; oknh ds i{k esa mfpr le>sa] fnyokbZ tk;saA " 4. That on 31.5.90, the Board submitted an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. mentioning therein that fro in a bare perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the cause of action if any accrued to the plaintiff on 20.6.7.5 and the present suit has been filed on 8.9.1988 and as such the same is barred by limitation. It was prayed that the plaint should be rejected being barred by limitation. It was prayed that the plaint should be rejected being barred by limitation. This application of the Board was rejected by learned A.M.J.M. No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide order dated 30.7.91, against which the Board has preferred this revision before this Court. 5. 1 have heard counsel for the parties. Shri G.C. Garg, counsel for the petitioner argued that the lower court has erred in rejecting the application of the Board only on the ground that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which can be decided only after filing written statement, framing of issues and recording of evidence. He argued that from Para No. 15 of the plaint itself it is apparent that the 220th meeting of the Board was held on 27.1.1976 in which the case of Sh. D.S. Bhargava was reviewed by the D.P.C. and that he was given promotion on the post of Supdt. Engineer. He drew my attention to Para No. 19 of the plaint in which it has been mentioned that on the recommendations of the D.P.C. the plaintiff was given promotion vide order dated 23.5.81 on the post of Supdt. Engineer. He further argued that the plaintiff was aware of the subsequent meetings of the Board but never raised any objection. Under these circumstances, the suit which has been filed on 8.9.88 is clearly barred by law. He argued that there is no necessity of filing written statement and recording any evidence. From the bare reading of the plaint, it is apparent that the same is beyond limitation and as such the same be rejected under 0.7, R. 11 (d) C.P.C. 6. On the other hand, Shri Ashok Gour, counsel for the plaintiff non-petitioner argued that the lower court has not committed any irregularity or illegality in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. He argued that whether the suit is within time or not is to be decided by the trial court only after recording evidence of the parties. He argued that the cause of action for the suit arose only on 4.4.88 when the Board issued office Order No. 1541 dated 4.4.88. From this date the suit is within time. From the office order No. 1541 dated 4.4.88, of the Board, it is apparent that by this order the Board issued inter-se seniority list of Supdt. Engineers. He argued that the cause of action for the suit arose only on 4.4.88 when the Board issued office Order No. 1541 dated 4.4.88. From this date the suit is within time. From the office order No. 1541 dated 4.4.88, of the Board, it is apparent that by this order the Board issued inter-se seniority list of Supdt. Engineers. The non-petitioner was already promoted on the post of Supdt. Engineer in the year 1981 as mentioned in Para No. 19 of the plaint. He was made aware of this fact. Under these circumstances to say that the limitation will start from 4.4.88 is meaningless. The lower court has rejected the application of the Board only on the ground that it is a mixed question of law and fact but from the bare reading of the plaint it is apparent that the cause of action if any arose to the plaintiff after the expiry of one year from 20.6.75. The present suit was filed on 8.9.1988 which is apparently beyond time. The lower court did not consider all these facts and rejected the application of the Board in arbitrary way. In case the order under revision is allowed to stand, it would cause irreparable injury to the Board.Revision allowed. *******