Judgment R.S.Garg, J. ( 1. ) This order shall finally decide W.P. No. 10239/2007 (Keshav Prasad Sharma Vs. Halke Raikwar and another) and W.P. NO. 11237/2008 (Keshav Prasad Sharma Vs. Jodhan Singh and others). ( 2. ) The short facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are that Haike Raikwar, in his capacity as plaintiff, and Jodhan Singh also in his capacity as plaintiff, filed different civil suits seeking declaration and injunction against the present petitioner/defendant that the sale deed in question was sham and bogus. It was not to be acted upon. It was a security- cum-guarantee for the loan extended by the defendant to the plaintiffs. It was also submitted in each of the plaint that contemporaneous document was also executed with an understanding that the suit property would be re-conveyed in favour of the plaintiff. In each of the civil suit, each of the plaintiff pleaded that he was in possession of the property, he went to the defendant for re-conveyance, who asserted his title on the basis of sham and bogus documents and intimated the plaintiff that instead of re-conveying the property to the plaintiff, he would sell the property to third party for dispossessing the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff was required to file the suit. It was also pleaded that the defendant is a money lender who had extended loan to number of persons and has also secured identical documents as a guarantee of loan though in fact the possession of the property continued with every such land holder. ( 3. ) After notice the defendant appeared before the Court and instead of filing his written statement filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a submission that limitation for declaration in relation to a registered document is three years and as the suit has been filed after lapse of seven years, the suit was barred under clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII and the plaint be accordingly, rejected. ( 4. ) In Civil Suit filed by Halke Raikwar, the trial Court rejected the application, therefore, the defendant filed W.P. No. 10239/2007. However, in civil suit filed by Jodhan Singh, the application filed by the present petitioner/defendant was allowed and on appeal the order was set aside and the suit was remanded back to the trial Court, therefore, the defendant has filed W.P. NO. 11237/2008. However, in civil suit filed by Jodhan Singh, the application filed by the present petitioner/defendant was allowed and on appeal the order was set aside and the suit was remanded back to the trial Court, therefore, the defendant has filed W.P. NO. 11237/2008. ( 5. ) Shri Trivedi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, by placing his strong reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of N. V.Srinivasa Murthy and others V. Mariyamma (dead) by proposed LRS. and others, (2005) 5 SCC548, Bishwanath Prasad Singh V. Rajendra Prasad and another, (2006) 4 SCC432 and Umabai and another V. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (dead) by LRS. and another, (2005) 6 SCC243, vehemently contended that the suit is barred by limitation, therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected and the fact relating to the alleged mortgage by sale and simultaneous execution of the document has been pleaded by the plaintiff, therefore, in the light of the same the suit is not maintainable. ( 6. ) Shri Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted that in the present suit the plaintiff has come to the Court with a submission that despite the execution of the document, the understanding between the parties was that the document would not be acted upon and the transaction between the parties would be a loan transaction. It is submitted by him that the suit is maintainable and the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage on a ground which can be raised in the written statement. ( 7. ) Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent/State, however, raised yet another objection saying that the writ petitions would not be maintainable because if the objections filed by the present petitioner are allowed, the suit would come to an end and, therefore, the matter should have been brought under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 8. ) For proper understanding of the dispute, it would be necessary to refer the provisions contained in Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under : "R.11. ( 8. ) For proper understanding of the dispute, it would be necessary to refer the provisions contained in Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under : "R.11. Rejection of plaint .- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases :- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c ) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9. Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation of supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff." If the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and despite the direction of the Court to correct the valuation, fails to do, where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is insufficiently stamped and despite direction of this Court the plaintiff does not do it and where the suit from the statement in the plaint appears to be barred by law, then the plaint can be rejected. After the amendment, clause (e) and (f) have also been added which say that where the plaint is not filed in duplicate and where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII of CPC then the plaint can be rejected. After the amendment, clause (e) and (f) have also been added which say that where the plaint is not filed in duplicate and where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VII of CPC then the plaint can be rejected. In the present case, according to Shri Trivedi, the suit from the statement made in the plaint appears to be barred by law of limitation and even otherwise no relief can be granted to the plaintiff in view of Section 58 (c) of Transfer of Property Act and the settled legal position. ( 9. ) It is trite to say that the Court cannot take into account the material beyond the plaint to declare the case of the plaintiff as frivolous. For rejecting a plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII, plaint averments are only to be seen. ( 10. ) When an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed then the Court only has to read the plaint averments and nothing beyond that. If the plaint on the first reading does not show availability of the cause of action which is a bundle of facts permitting the plaintiff to come to the Court, Court can reject the plaint. If the plaint prima facie appears to be under valued and despite direction of the Court the plaintiff does not correct the valuation within the time fixed by the Court, then the Court can reject the plaint. In such a situation the Court only has to see that whether the plaint discloses the cause of action and whether the plaint is under valued or not. The Court is not required to see that what would be the correct valuation and is not to give decision on the issue at this stage. The Court on the evidence proposed to be led by the defendant cannot hold that the plaint is liable to be rejected. The Court may also see that whether the plaint is properly valued and is properly stamped. In case the Court finds that the plaint is not properly stamped then without looking into the defence which can be raised by the defendant in his written statement, the court may ask the plaintiff to pay the required court fee. The Court may also see that whether the plaint is properly valued and is properly stamped. In case the Court finds that the plaint is not properly stamped then without looking into the defence which can be raised by the defendant in his written statement, the court may ask the plaintiff to pay the required court fee. Clause (d) clearly says that the Court has to see that from the statement made in the plaint, the suit appears to be barred by any law. ( 11. ) In the present case, according to the defendant, from perusal of the plaint, it would appear that the sale deed was executed in the year 1998 and the suit came to be filed in the year 2006, therefore the suit as barred by limitation and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of N. V. Srinivasa Murthy and others (supra), the plaint was liable to be rejected. We take up the said issue. ( 12. ) In the matter of N.V. Srinivasa Murthy and others (supra), the plaintiffs had come to the Court seeking a declaration simplicitor that they were owner of the property. However, in the pleading it was mentioned that a registered sale deed dated 5/5/1993 was executed. According to the pleading that was only a loan transaction executed for securing the amount borrowed by the plaintiffs predecessor. The plaintiff in the said suit did not ask for a relief of declaration that the registered sale deed dated 5/5/1993 was a loan transaction nor they claimed that they are entitled to enforce the oral agreement for specific performance. True, the Supreme Court observed that in such case the plaint was showing some cause of action but the Supreme Court was also of the opinion that the trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that if all the averments made in the plaint are accepted, the suit would appear to be barred by limitation. The Supreme Court simply examined the plaint and observed that the suit was barred by limitation on the facts stated in the plaint itself. ( 13. ) In the matter on hand the plaintiffs have pleaded that the document was sham and bogus and it was not to be acted upon. The Supreme Court simply examined the plaint and observed that the suit was barred by limitation on the facts stated in the plaint itself. ( 13. ) In the matter on hand the plaintiffs have pleaded that the document was sham and bogus and it was not to be acted upon. They have also pleaded that they went to the defendant along with the amount for re-conveyance of the property but the defendant refused to do so. In view of the said pleadings, it cannot be held that there is no cause of action and suit is barred by limitation. In the present matter, the pleadings are not only that the document was sham and bogus but as the Supreme Court observed in the matter of N. V.Srinivasa Murthy and others (supra), the plaintiffs are also praying for farther relief. In our considered opinion the plaint as available with us, prima facie shows availability of the cause of action and the suit does not appear to be barred by limitation. ( 14. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment in the matter of Umabai and another (supra) to state before us that in the light of Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, if the agreement to re-convey is not entered in the sale document and is executed contemporaneously then the transaction between the parties would not be a loan transaction but in fact the transaction would be an outright sale with an agreement to- re-convey the property. ( 15. ) Undisputedly, this question can be raised by the defendant at the time of trial. In any case the plaintiff would be permitted to lead evidence in support of the pleadings .that the document was sham and bogus. The finding that the document was sham and bogus, the sale deed was to be acted upon or not and whether the execution of contemporaneous document would bar the plaintiff coming to the Court will have to be recorded by the Court at the time of trial. If the plaintiff convinces the Court that the documents is sham and bogus and it was not to be acted upon and in view of the understanding between the parties, he continues to be in possession of the property then obviously the Court would record such finding in favour of plaintiff and may decree the suit. If the plaintiff convinces the Court that the documents is sham and bogus and it was not to be acted upon and in view of the understanding between the parties, he continues to be in possession of the property then obviously the Court would record such finding in favour of plaintiff and may decree the suit. But if the defendant proves before the Court that there was no understanding between the parties regarding loan and the sale was outright sale and the contemporaneous document in fact is a concession in favour of the plaintiff then the suit of the plaintiff will have to be dismissed. In any case, at this stage, this Court is not required to enter into the applicability of the provisions contained under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act. ( 16. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed his strong reliance upon the judgment in the matter of Bishwanath Prasad Singh (supra)iV. VSrinivasa Murthy and others (supra). The said matter was again in relation to Section 58 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act and did not deal with the provisions contained in Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 17. ) There is always a distinction between Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC and the provisions contained in Order XIV of CPC. Certain questions, answers of which are dependent upon the evidence to be submitted by the parties can never be considered to be question decidable under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC. For application on Rule 11 of Order VII, a Court only has to see the plaint averments and will have to record a finding that from the plaint averments, the suit does not appear to be maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected. For clause (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII, the Court cannot look into anything beyond what is said in the plaint itself. A difference is to be marked in clause (a) and (d) on one side and clause (b), (c ) and (f) on the other. While clause (a) and (d) are dependent upon the pleadings of plaintiff, Clause (b), (c), (e) and (f) are dependent upon non-compliance of the Court orders and non-compliance of the procedural law as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 18. While clause (a) and (d) are dependent upon the pleadings of plaintiff, Clause (b), (c), (e) and (f) are dependent upon non-compliance of the Court orders and non-compliance of the procedural law as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 18. ) When a question is beyond the scope of Rule 11 of Order VII, then such question is to be raised by the defendant in his written statement. If such pleadings are raised then the Court would cast issue and if in a given case the Court deems fit, it may decide the issue as preliminary issue, otherwise may decide all issues at the time of conclusion of the trial. ( 19. ) In the present matter, the emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner was on the provisions contained in Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act which, according to the learned counsel, are prima facie goes in favour of defendant. On deeper scrutiny, we would be obliged to say that this is not the stage to decide the said question. The Court on strength of the evidence to be led by the parties has to record a finding that the document was sham and bogus, it was acted upon or not or whether in accordance with the terms the parties are entitled to some or the other relief. ( 20. ) In our opinion the Court below was not unjustified in observing that the plaintiff would be entitled to lead evidence and, the question relating to maintainability of the suit and the limitation will have to be decided at the time of hearing. ( 21. ) In each of the case, we do not find any cause for interference. Both the petitions are dismissed with costs. Counsel fee quantified at Rs.2500/- in each of the case. Each of the defendant/petitioner would be obliged to deposit the cost in the trial Court for being paid to plaintiff in person. Deposit of the cost shall be a condition precedent for the defendant to take part in the civil suit. ( 22. ) Copy of this judgment be kept in Writ Petition No. 11237/2008 (Keshav Prasad Sharma Vs. Jodhan Singh and others). Petition dismissed.