R. C. LAHOTI, J. ( 1 ) A Suit for declaration of title and issuance of permanent preventive injunction field by the plaintiff appellants has been dismissed as barred by time by the Courts below. Aggrieved plaintiffs have come up in Second Appeal. ( 2 ) VIDE order dated 21-1-1980. this Court admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following two substantial questions of law : (1) When an objection petition under Rules 69 of the Co-operative societies Act is rejected, but before the suit could be filed the sale itself is set aside, could second objection be filed on the same grounds ? (2) If the second objection are rejected, whether the objector is entitled to file a suit under Rule 69 ? ( 3 ) IT appears that the plaintiffs are the owners of an agricultural holding. In execution of certain award of the Co-operative court, the holding has been put to auction treating it as a property belonging to the defendant no. 5. The plaintiffs had preferred an objection disputing the availability of the suit property for sale for recovery of any dues payable by the defendant No. 5 objections were dismissed. It further appears that an objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation was raised by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in their written statement, whereupon a preliminary issue was framed. The trial Court initially posted the case for recording the evidence of the parfies. However, on 1-3-1978, the Court abruptly formed an opinion, persuaded by submission made by the parties, that it was not necessary to record the evidence, and the issue was capable of being disposed of merely by hearing arguments. It was done and the suit was dismissed. ( 4 ) IN the opinion of this court, the parties, as also the Court have been mislead in understanding and appreciating the true tenor of the suit and that is why, this Court is unhesitatingly of the opinion that dismissal of the suit by the trial court has been rather unceremonial and a trial on merit is warranted to serve the ends of justice. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH no evidence has been recorded, in order to appreciate the contention very ably raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants, it is necessary to notice a few documents and the chronology of events as discernible from the record. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH no evidence has been recorded, in order to appreciate the contention very ably raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants, it is necessary to notice a few documents and the chronology of events as discernible from the record. ( 6 ) THE suit holding undoubtedly belonged to the plaintiffs, as is disclosed by entries in records. An objection petition was preferred on 30-4-1973, on 19-12-1973, the Sales Officer, partly over-ruled the objections and yet kept them alive directing evidence to be recorded on 28-12-1973. The plaint alleges that in face of the plaintiff's objections, the proposed auction was adjourned. On 14-1-1975, the Sales Officer, Neemuch informed the plaintiffs that the objection petition had been forwarded to Sales Officer, mandsaur, for hearing and disposal, and hence the objectors were advised to contact the later authority. The order dated 14-6-1974 passed by the sales officer, Mandsaur, indicates that the objections preferred by the plaintiffs were disposed of in their absence without their having been informed of the date of hearing and the sale proceeded. ( 7 ) RULES 69 and 69-A of M. P. Co-operative Societies Rules 1962, read as under :"69. Investigation of claims to property attached. (1) Where any claim is preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment of any property attached under these rules on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the sales officer shall investigate the claim or objection and make an order either rejection and dispose it of an merits : or provided that the Sales Officer may refuse to investigate the claim or objection if he considers that the claim or objection is frivolous, (2) Where the property to which the claim or objection relates has been advertised for sale, the Sales Officer may postpone the sale pending the investigation of the claim or objection, (3) Where a claim or an objection is preferred the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit within six months from the date of the order to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute, but subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive. 69-A. Investigation of claims to property attached for transfer by lease. 69-A. Investigation of claims to property attached for transfer by lease. (1) Where any claim is preferred to or any objection is made to the attachment of any property attached under these rules on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Sale Officer shall investigate the claim or objection and dispose it of on merits : provided that the Sales Officer may refuse to investigate claim or objection if he considers that the claim or objection is frivolous. (2) Where the property, to which the claim or objection relates has been advertised for transfer by lease, the Sales Officer may postpone the transfer by lease pending the investigation of the claim or objection. (3) Where a claim for an objection is preferred the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit within six months from the date of the order to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute, but subjects to the result of such suit, if any. the order shall be conclusive. " ( 8 ) A bare reading of the Rules suggest that they speak of an objection being preferred against at attachment of any property. It is the rejection of such objection, which obliges the unsuccessful objector to institute a suit within six months from ,'the date of the order'. That phrase 'the date of the order' came up for judicial scrutiny of the court in Gayaprasad v. State of M. P. , (1989) MPJR 635) and this court interpreting a Part Materia provision held that the phase 'the date of the order' shall have to be construed and read as 'the date of the knowledge of the order' for constant of period of limitation, where the party affected did not have notice of the date and the order was passed in its absence. ( 9 ) IF the objector-plaintiffs were not even informed of the date appointed for hearing on their objection petition and they were also not informed of the rejection thereof, it is difficult to conceive how the limitation would set to commence. ( 9 ) IF the objector-plaintiffs were not even informed of the date appointed for hearing on their objection petition and they were also not informed of the rejection thereof, it is difficult to conceive how the limitation would set to commence. ( 10 ) ANOTHER aspect of the case overlooked by the courts below deserves to be noticed by this Court, It appears from the written statement filed by the defendant, and several other documents, that the suit land was probably not attached, it was put to auction on account of its having been encumbered for the amount of loan secured by defendant No. 5. If that be so, neither the objections were preferred under Rule 69/69-A nor the rejection was made thereunder, so as to hold the suit of the plaintiffs as one filed under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 69 or 69-A. It would be suit based on the independent title of the plaintiffs ignoring the sale and seeking declaration of their own title coming under clud on account of the sale held by the Sales Officer. Such a suit would be governed not by sub-rule (3)of Rule 69 or 69-A but by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. ( 11 ) INASMUCH as the trial court, so also the First Appellate Court, have overlooked all the above said aspects of the case, the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit at the threshhold cannot be upheld. It has to be set aside. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the. courts below are set aside. The case is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to try the issues by recording evidence and then to decide the suit. The parties shall be afforded an opportunity of amending their pleadings. If so advised, so as to elaborate and also make specific their respective pleas enabling a just and fair decision of their respective rights, in the light of what has been said hereinabove, ( 13 ) THE appeal stands disposed of in the terms abovesaid. There shall be no order as to the costs of this appeal. The parties through their respective counsel are directed fo appear before the trial court on 22-3-1993. Appeal allowed. .