JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been filed against the order dated 3.9.2001, by which the application of the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 R. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") has been rejected. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that certain land had been allotted to one Surja Ram. He executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner on 3.8.1973 and was put in possession of the land. Petitioner further executed an agreement to sell in favour of his brothers, i.e. non-petitioners No. 1 and 2, on 19.5.1984. Petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against said Surja Ram, which is still pending, wherein plaintiff/non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 also made an application for impleadment, which was rejected. Against that order, their revision had also been rejected by this court. Subsequently, plaintiff/non- petitioners No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant-petitioner, wherein an application under O. 7 R. 11 of the Code had been filed to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was time- barred and their application for impleadment in the earlier suit between him and Surja Ram, had already been dismissed by the trial court, which attained finality because of the order of this Court. The learned trial court dismissed the said application on the grounds that dismissal of the application for impleadment filed by the plaintiff/non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 cannot be a ground to reject the plaint under O. 7 R. 11 of the Code; moreso, the issue of limitation can be considered only after giving an opportunity to lead certain evidence. Hence this revision. Though the issue would be examined at a later stage. 3. Admittedly, the rejection of their application for impleadment cannot be a ground for rejecting the plaint under the said provisions. Learned trial Court has rightly held that it was not the stage to consider the issue of limitation as an issue can be framed in the suit in this regard and may be determined, but that was not a case to reject the plaint at that stage. I see-no material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction by the trial court, which may warrant interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. The revision is accordingly dismissed.Revision Dismissed - Order Rejecting Application Under Order 7, Rule 11 Affirmed. *******