J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed below Ex. 18 on 23-10-1991, by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Junagadh in special Civil Suit No. 1328 of 1986, by filing this revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the original defendant and the respondent herein is the original plaintiff who filed the aforesaid suit for breach of contract for the recovery of earnest money and instalments of Rs. 36,125/- from the petitioner, a statutory committee. It is inter alia contended by the petitioner that the petitioner-committee had let out the premises to its members. In response to the public advertisement published in the newspaper, the respondent had deposited the earnest money and instalments. In a public auction shop No. 74 in a category came to be allotted to the respondent. The said auction was cancelled and the amounts paid by the respondent in respect of the aforesaid shop was forfeited and reduction was made and the said shop was allotted to some other person by the petitioner committee. ( 3 ) THE respondent thereafter filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of the said amount together with interest against the petitioner. Without filing written statement, the petitioner submitted an application, Ex. 18 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) read, with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure. After hearing the parlies, the trial Court dismissed the application on 23-10-1991. Hence, the petitioner had challenged the legality and validity of the ( 4 ) IT is found from the impugned order thai request to reject the plaint was not accepted in the absence of written statement of the original defendant who is the petitioner herein. It is also observed in the impugned order that the defendant was given sufficient time fur filing written statement. However, it has not filed the written statement. Therefore, it was found by the trial Court question of, maintainability of the suit and rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) cannot be considered at the stage. The trial Court relied upon the decision of the Bombay high Court (AIR 1986 Bom. 46 ). It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred this revision application. Therefore, it was found by the trial Court question of, maintainability of the suit and rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) cannot be considered at the stage. The trial Court relied upon the decision of the Bombay high Court (AIR 1986 Bom. 46 ). It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred this revision application. ( 5 ) IT is true that plaint can be rejected on any one of the grounds mentioned in order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure. However, in order to reject a plaint one or more grounds must exist. The contention of the petitioner in the application, Ex. 18 is that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 58 of the Gujarat Agriculture Produce Market act, 1963 (the Act for short ). In the said application, it was staled that the suit was filed without notice and, there was bar of limitation, relying on the averments made in para 15 of the plaint. ( 6 ) IT is now submitted that the averements made in the plaint para 15 show that the suit is filed within the period of two months after the service of notice as required under Section 58 (2) of the Act. It is stated that notice is dated 20- 10-1986 under Section 58 (1) of the Act. The suit came to be filed on 30-10-1986 and, therefore, the suit is barred by provisions of Section 58 of the Act. In the implication Ex. 18, para 4, it was contended that statutory notice should be served first and the suit can be filed only after expiration of two months next after the Service of the statutory notice. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that summons was served on the petitioner-defendant on 1-12-1986 and the petitioner applied for adjournment for tiling written statement on five occasions till 15-3-1987 by giving applications in the trial Court at Exs. 7 to 11. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact that summons was served on the petitioner-defendant on 1-12-1986 and the petitioner applied for adjournment for tiling written statement on five occasions till 15-3-1987 by giving applications in the trial Court at Exs. 7 to 11. The trial court has observed that the petitioner had failed to file the written statement despite giving sufficient opportunity for the same and has later on invited the court to exercise the power of the court under order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil procedure, Considering the facts and circumstances at the stage, the trial Court reached the conclusion that there was no fit case for rejection of the plaint at that stage under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. R. In support of this petition, reliance is placed on the decision of the Bombay high court rendered in Ebrahimbhai abdul Kayum v. State of Maharashtra, (76) BLR 769 ). The principle laid down in the said decision is that if the suit is filed before the expiration of the period stipulated under the provisions of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is not maintainable. There is no disputes with regard to the principle laid down therein. In that case, the written statement was filed, preliminary issue was raised on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the trial Court on facts reached the conclusion that the plaintiff had filed the suit without complying with the provisions of Section 80 of the Civil procedure Code and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable in the present case, written statement is not filed despite sufficient opportunity being given. No doubt, mere non-filing of the written statement does not preclude the court from exercising powers under Order 7, rule 11. However, it is very clear from the persual of Order 7, Rule 11 that plaint is required to be rejected in the four circumstances narrated therein. Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 is relied on. It is prescribed in clause (d) that where suit appears from the statement in plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected. Thus, where the suit appeals from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law of limitation, the plaint is required to be rejected. It is prescribed in clause (d) that where suit appears from the statement in plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected. Thus, where the suit appeals from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law of limitation, the plaint is required to be rejected. The trial Court issued the summons to the defendant- petitioner herein, and the petitioner- committee went on applying for adjournment on five occassions to contest the claim made by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 36,125/- towards the deposit and instalments pursuant to the public auction in connection with allotment of stop as aforesaid. The plaintiff inter alia contended in the suit that there was breach of contract on the part of the original defendant-petitioner committee. It is also mentioned in para 15 of the plaint that registered notice dated 20-10- 1986 was served and it remained unresponded till filing of the suit. A copy of the plaint was shown to this Court during the course of submission which shows that the plaint was drafted on 30- 10-1986. There is nothing on record, to show as to when the plaint was actually presented before the court. ( 8 ) EVEN if the contention that the suit was filed on 30-10-1986 is accepted at its face value, then also, the question whether in it dispute like one on hand, notice under Section 58 of the Act is required or not, is required to be examined. The court apparently did not find sufficient ground for rejection of the plaint when the suit was filed. Therefore, court did not exercise the powers under order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure code. The provisions incorporated (sic.) in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 go to show that where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by law of limitation, the court shall reject the plaint. Therefore, court did not exercise the powers under order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure code. The provisions incorporated (sic.) in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 go to show that where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by law of limitation, the court shall reject the plaint. Once the plaint is not rejected by the court and the other side appears after service of summons and seeks time for filing written statement and without filing written statement, makes an application placing reliance on Rule 11 of Order 7, it is not incumbent upon the court to decide the question whether to reject the plaint or not at that stage, without examining the requirement and compliance of the provisions of the relevant law in the light of the facts. The impugned order clearly goes to show that the trial Court did not find it proper at that stage to examine powers to reject the plaint. The suit, even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that it was filed on 30-10-1986, application, Ex. 18 came to be filed on 8- 11-1988. In the circumstances, the trial court found that there was no fit case for rejection of the plaint at that stage. The contention now raised in this petition is that there was non-compliance of provisions of Section 58 (2) of the Act. Whether the suit is filed within the period of limitation- or whether there was requirement of compliance of provision of Section 58 of the Act, cannot be said to be pure questions of law requiring rejection of the plaint without pleadings of the other side. On the mere fact that plaint para 15 contains that the cause of action for filing the suit occurred on 20- 1-1985 and the suit came to be filed on 30-10-1986, it is contended that the, suit was barred by limitation in view of section 58 (L) of the Act. On the mere fact that plaint para 15 contains that the cause of action for filing the suit occurred on 20- 1-1985 and the suit came to be filed on 30-10-1986, it is contended that the, suit was barred by limitation in view of section 58 (L) of the Act. This submission will assume importance in the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the dispute between the parties if the court finds that the statutory provisions required under Section 58 (1) of the Act in such suit involving the dispute of refund of earnest money or recovery of instalment after cancellation of public auction, whether the cause of action mentioned in the plaint attracted provisions of Section 58 (1) will have to be examined by the Court. It cannot be straightaway presumed that there was statutory bar of provision of Section 58 even in the nature of claim or cause of. action pleaded in the plaint at that stage without filing written statement and raising issues based on pleadings. It is a settled proposition of law that if the impugned action is without any authority of law or illegal or nullity, no notice is required. Whether a statutory notice was required or not is a question depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the dispute between the parties. Therefore also, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal or warranting interference of this court exercising powers under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 9 ) IT is very clear from a bare perusal of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure code that this Court will not exercise powers under this provision unless it is successfully shown that the trial Court has exceeded jurisdiction vested in it or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has1 acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. ( 10 ) A conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 115 and Order 7, rule 11 and in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said even for a moment that the impugned order is irregular, illegal- or exhibiting failure of exercise of jurisdiction. Provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 are procedural and they are designed and aimed at preventing vexatious and frivolous litigation. Provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 are procedural and they are designed and aimed at preventing vexatious and frivolous litigation. Again, the limitation prescribed in Section 115 cannot be lost sight of. The jurisdictional sweep of this court under Section 115 is very much circumscribed. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances and the aforesaid provisions of law, this Court has no hesitation in finding that the present petition filed by a statutory committee is absolutely meritless and is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Interim relief shall stand vacated. The trial Court is also directed to dispose of the suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 36,125/- with interest allegedly arising out of breach of contract for refund of earnest money and the amount paid towards the instalments, as cxpeditiously as possible as unifluenced by the observations made by this Court hereinabove, as they are only for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under section 115. Rule is discharged. Rule is discharged. .