JUDGMENT:- Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The order passed by Joint Civil Judge [Senior Division], Nagpur, dated 17th April, 2004 in Special Civil Suit No.602 of 1991 is subject matter of challenge in this Revision Application. 3. Trial Court framed two issues to be tried as Preliminary Issues. The circumstances, which have led to framing of these two issues, are narrated in Para 1 of the order, which can be summarized as follows ;- [a] The Defendants moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11, read with Rule 9A, Civil Procedure Code. [b] Nature of objection was that: [i] upon reading of the contents of the plaint, no cause of action can be made out. [ii] on reading of the plaint, the suit is barred by limitation. 4. In view of the fact that the preliminary issues were being decided, the Written Statement has not been filed. 5. Issues as to cause of action and limitation were decided in favour of plaintiff. Learned Advocate is taking exception to this order. 6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R. P. Joshi for the petitioners at length. The summary of submissions of learned Advocate Mr. Joshi is as follows ;- [a] According to Mr. Joshi, on reading of the plaint, it is seen that plaintiff has sold the goods and issued various invoices and, therefore, the suit is for recovery of price of goods and, therefore, the goods were covered by Article 14 of the Limitation Act. The limitation will start from the date of each invoice. [b] Plaint does not disclose all details of invoices. The suit, therefore, is without cause of action. [c] Since the suit falls in Article 14 of the Limitation Act and particulars of invoices are not given, the limitation is liable to be reckoned from what is shown in the plaint. Plaintiff has claimed arrears from 1985. The claim, therefore, is, on showing by the plaintiff, barred by limitation. [d] Barely showing some arrears of the year 1988 does not bring the plaintiff's suit within limitation. [e] The plaintiff was granted ample opportunities to lead evidence before the Trial Court to show as to how the suit is within limitation. However, the plaintiff failed to lead evidence. Ultimately, Trial Court decided the question on the basis of pleadings. Plaintiff is not diligent in prosecuting the suit. [e] The plaintiff was granted ample opportunities to lead evidence before the Trial Court to show as to how the suit is within limitation. However, the plaintiff failed to lead evidence. Ultimately, Trial Court decided the question on the basis of pleadings. Plaintiff is not diligent in prosecuting the suit. [f] Trial Court did not apply its mind as to the questions involved and, therefore, it is a fit case where plaint should be rejected in view of obvious case of bar of limitation as well as non-disclosure of cause of action. 7. Learned Advocate for the Applicants has relied upon two Judgments of this Court, namely [a] Chintaman Dhundiraj Vs. Sad guru Narayan Maharj Datta Sansthan & others [1956 Bombay 553 (AIR V 43 C 214 Aug.)] and [b] Vijaykumar Satishchandra & Co. and another Vs. Ms. Rajgopal Badrinarayan Malpani and another [ 1996(1) Mh.L.J. 594 : 1996(3) ALL MR 277]. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. A. A. Naik, in reply, submitted that plaint aptly and properly discloses the cause of action. Barring a few invoices, of which one specimen is on record at Annex.-2 [page 17], on a very few occasions, transactions of payment by Demand Draft against invoices have occurred. All transactions prior thereto, which were on record, were debited to the defendant's account, including interest accrued thereon and payments received from time to time were credited to the account. This position submitted by the plaintiff is clear from the debits and credits shown in para 3 and para 4 of the plaint. The amounts of accumulated annual arrears and payments made year to year are not either as per invoice or invoices taken together. If the defendants want to dispute the nature of transactions, that was liable to be done by filing Written Statement. The issues as to jurisdiction, limitation, cause of action are liable to be ascertained from the averments contained in the plaint and in the present case, plaint sufficiently describes those. Learned Advocate Mr. Naik submitted that Trial Court has correctly addressed the issues involved and recorded a finding that the issues framed were liable to be answered in favour of plaintiff. Learned Advocate Mr. Naik, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition. 9. This Court finds that after suit summons was served, the defendants appeared in the suit and preferred to raise objections under Rule 11 of Order 7, Civil Procedure Code. Learned Advocate Mr. Naik, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition. 9. This Court finds that after suit summons was served, the defendants appeared in the suit and preferred to raise objections under Rule 11 of Order 7, Civil Procedure Code. Defendant's request for rejection of plaint was rejected. It, therefore, approached this Court by filing a Civil Revision Application, that being Civil Revision Application No.634 of 1999, where this Court directed that the Trial Court should frame preliminary issues as to cause of action and limitation, and try and decide the same. 10. The preliminary issues were framed in the light of Objection under OrderVII, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, and order passed in Civil Revision Application No.634 of 1999. 11. In the light of above narrated background, it has become necessary for this Court to examine as to what is the exact controversy raised in this case. 12. Now, this Court has to fall back to the basic provisions of Rule 11 of Order- VII of Civil Procedure Code. Under this Rule, Court has to find out whether a plaint discloses cause of action - (a) Rule 11, and (b) whether "suit appears from the statement contained in the plaint to be barred by limitation" [Clause (d) of Rule 11]. It, therefore, becomes necessary to peruse the contents of the plaint and determine whether objection raised by the defendants is valid. 13. This Court finds that crucial averments contained in the plaint, which are found in Para 4, reveal that though for each transaction of sale various invoices were issued, it is pleaded that payments were not made on the basis of sums disclosed in the invoices, i.e. invoice to invoice. Naturally the amount due' was debited in the account and dues were carried forward. It is further stated in para 6 of the plaint that unpaid amounts carried interest. Even debit notes in that regard were prepared and amount was debited to the account, so were credits entered in said account. It is also seen from the contents of the plaint that the amount, which was recoverable as a sum effect of transactions, constituted the cause of action. 14. In the light of rival submissions and revelations from the plaint, this Court has examined the reasons given by the learned Trial Court. It is also seen from the contents of the plaint that the amount, which was recoverable as a sum effect of transactions, constituted the cause of action. 14. In the light of rival submissions and revelations from the plaint, this Court has examined the reasons given by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds that Judgment of learned Trial Judge is, thus, found to be well supported by facts as pleaded in the plaint as to cause of action as well as about limitation. 15. This Court has then to find out whether the case is governed by the Judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate. It is seen from the reported Judgment of this Court in case of Vijaykumar Satishchandra & Company [1996(3) ALL MR 277] [supra] that on the facts of the case, Their Lordships found that the last payment was made in 1979, while there was no transaction between 1975 to 1979, and as suit was filed in 1981, the limitation would apply from the date of purchase, and shall be for three years, and not from the date of last payment. From the contents of the judgment in this reported case, it is seen that the plaintiff therein did not claim that it was a case of various transactions where money received was in part payment. In Para 4, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows : "4. Admittedly, the suit is filed for recovery of the amount towards the price of the clothes sold on credit. It is an admitted fact that the entry of the total bill amount was carried forward upto 15th March, 1975 and thereafter a sum of Rs.63,752.46 has been debited in the Khata of the appellants Defendants. ..." Thus, it was a case of a single transaction and the limitation would run from the date of invoice and it was, therefore, a case of Article 14 of Limitation Act. The said case, therefore, does not help the defendants. 16. The second case relied upon by the petitioner, namely Chintaman Dhundiraj [supra], refers to whether payment by cheque would amount to acknowledgment. This circumstance is not falling directly in issue in the present case for adjudication, for the reason that the case was being tried on the point of Order- VII, Rule 11 only. This Court, therefore, need not deal with the facts of this Judgment on the present case. 17. This circumstance is not falling directly in issue in the present case for adjudication, for the reason that the case was being tried on the point of Order- VII, Rule 11 only. This Court, therefore, need not deal with the facts of this Judgment on the present case. 17. It is, thus, a case where suit is not filed for amount recoverable for dues of any specific invoice. Article 14 of the Limitation Act, therefore, has no application. On facts shown in the plaint, it is a case of claim for recovery of dues on an open and current account, and the case is under Article 26 of the Act. 18. In the background discussed above, this Court finds that the Judgment impugned cannot be faulted for the reasons, whatsoever. There is no error of law, or of jurisdiction. 19. It is seen that the suit was filed in 1991. The defendants, who have to answer a debt claimed in the suit, which is to the tune of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. and interest etc., are delaying the trial by deferring it indefinitely. The defendants have sought to stall the suit even without filing written statement by raising a preliminary point of limitation and more than 15 years time is lost on preliminary point only. In fact, it is a simple case of Order-VII, Rule II, where contents of plaint were sufficient yardstick, and ex facie the objection is found to be vexatious. Not only that the Revision Application deserves dismissal, but this Court will have to order exemplary costs on the petitioners, and direct the defendants to file Written Statement and further direct that the suit shall be heard expeditiously and decided, as far as possible, within a period of six months. 20. This Court, therefore, passes following Order :- [a] Revision Application is dismissed, and Rule is discharged. [b] Parties shall appear in the Trial Court on 16th October, 2006. [c] Defendants shall file Written Statement, for which 6th November, 2006 is fixed by consent of parties. [d] Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this Writ of this order. [b] Parties shall appear in the Trial Court on 16th October, 2006. [c] Defendants shall file Written Statement, for which 6th November, 2006 is fixed by consent of parties. [d] Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this Writ of this order. [e] By way of exemplary cost, the defendants shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000-00 [rupees twenty-five thousand only] to the plaintiff, however, said amount shall be recoverable if the defendants fail in the suit and suffers the decree. Revision application dismissed.