L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J :- The appellant filed O.S. No.1329 of 2002 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, against the respondent, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that he is the absolute owner of the property, comprising of 562 square yards with compound wall and fencing, bearing Municipal No.1 0/692/8, corresponding to new No.10-8-86 of Girmajipet, Warangal. He traced his title to the land, through a sale deed, dated 21.10.1974. Alleging that the respondent is interfering with his possession, the appellant sought for the relief of perpetual injunction. The respondent denied the very title of the appellant as well as the possession over the suit schedule property. Even the correctness of the description of the property was doubted. Through its judgment, dated 8.2.2007, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Against the same, the appellant filed A.S. No.21 of 2007 in the Court of V Additional District Judge, Warangal. The appeal was dismissed on 27.4.2007. Hence, this second appeal. 2. Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though it is not at all necessary for his client to prove title, in a suit for injunction, he has filed the sale deed of himself and his vendor, and to prove his possession, he has filed tax receipts. He further submits that the trial Court has already appointed a Commissioner and despite the positive finding in the report, the Courts below have dismissed the suit and the appeal. He contends that the view taken by the lower appellate Court as regards non-compliance with Section 685 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the Act'), as made applicable to the War an gal Municipal Corporation, is without basis, since no plea, in this regard, was raised by the respondent. 3. The suit was filed by the appellant for the relief of injunction simplicitor. The trial Court framed only one issue, touching upon the same. On behalf of the appellant, PW s.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, DWs.l and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. In addition to this, the trial Court has taken on record Exs.C1 to C29. 4. Heavy burden rested upon the appellant to prove his possession. On behalf of the appellant, PW s.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, DWs.l and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. In addition to this, the trial Court has taken on record Exs.C1 to C29. 4. Heavy burden rested upon the appellant to prove his possession. The very fact that a Commissioner came to be appointed to note the physical features, and nothing substantial could come out of it, discloses the cloud on the possession of the appellant over the plot. Though payment of tax is one of the factors to be taken into account, when the trial Court has meticulously examined and a specific finding was recorded to the effect that the appellant failed to prove his possession, this Court cannot interfere with such a pure question of fact. In addition to affirming the finding of fact as to possession, recorded by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court took into account the impact of Section 685 of the Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Pioneer Builders, 1999 (3) ALD 140 = 1999 (3) AL T 1 (DB). In that case, the defendant in a suit, which happened to be the State Government, raised the plea about non-compliance with Section 80 of CPC, at the appellate stage. It was held that having failed to raise the objection, at the relevant and appropriate time, the appellant therein cannot be permitted to raise it at a subsequent stage. In the instant case, no plea, as such, was raised by the respondent, be it, at the trial or appellate stage. However, on its own accord, the lower appellate Court verified as to whether an important provision, such as Section 685 of the Act, was complied with and on fmding that it was not so, took the same into account and added one more ground to the rejection of the appeal. 6. Failure of a party to raise the ground for rejection at the proper stage, and the right of the Court to exercise its power or discretion under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are two distinct phenomena. 6. Failure of a party to raise the ground for rejection at the proper stage, and the right of the Court to exercise its power or discretion under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are two distinct phenomena. While the former needs to be examined from the point of view of the party concerned, the latter arises out of the discharge of duty by the Court. Rule 11 of Order VII CPC not only allows the concerned parties and in particular, the defendants, to insist the Court to reject the plaint, but also confers powers and in some cases duty on the Court, to ensure that a suit, which is otherwise barred by law, is not entertained or tried by it. For instance, a plea as to bar of limitation, even if not taken by the affected party; can be considered by the Court in discharge of its obligation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act and reject the plaint. So is the case with the provisions of law, which bar the suits. Therefore, it cannot be said that by taking upon itself, the verification as to compliance with Section 685 of the Act, the lower appellate Court had committed an irregularity. This Court is of the view that by doing so, the said Court had complied with Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. At any rate, that was not the only ground, on which the appeal was rejected. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the appellant to file a suit for declaration and other ancillary reliefs. As and when such a suit is filed, it shall be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made at any stage in the present set of proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.