Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.3.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala dismissing the application of the defendant- petitioners filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non suiting the plaintiff - respondent on the ground that the suit filed by them was barred as the period limitation had expired long ago. The plaintiff-respondents had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were in equal shares to the extent of 1/6th share and plaintiff-respondents No. 4 to 7 where in equal share being co-sharer to the extent of 1/6th. Similar relief has been claimed in respect of plaintiff-respondent Nos. 8 and 9 alongwith some, other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit an application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. was filed claiming that the suit of the plaintiff- respondents was barred as no cause of action was available to them. The trial Court has dismissed the application. 2. Shri V.K. Kataria, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the plaintiff-respondents did not have any cause or action they could not have filed the suit and as a matter of fact the cause of action, if any, was available to them in 1958 because the revenue record, since that year shows that their predecessor-in-interest were co-sharer and in possession. The learned counsel has further argued that the exchange deed dated 23.1.1958 was duly incorporated in the revenue record in 1958 and mutation was also sanctioned as is evident from Annexure P-3. 3. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the order of the trial Court I am of the considered view that the plaintiff-respondents cannot be non suited obviously by terming the suit was barred by limitation because the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. It has been claimed by the plaintiff-respondents that they have been in actual possession of the suit land. The trial Court has observed that the defendant-petitioners have not produced on record any documentary proof showing that the entries in the revenue record were incorporated in their names after giving notice to the plaintiff-respondents who were admittedly co-sharer in the suit land. In the absence of such a notice, knowledge with regard to change in the entries or such a knowledge on the basis of sanction of mutation could not be attributed to the plaintiff-respondents. In the absence of such a notice, knowledge with regard to change in the entries or such a knowledge on the basis of sanction of mutation could not be attributed to the plaintiff-respondents. Therefore, triable issues have been raised before the Court which cannot be decided in a summary manner as contemplated by Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. There is thus no merit in this petition.