Judgment : Heard Mr. Dada, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this revision application, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 25th May, 2010 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Special Civil Suit No.162/2009/III dismissing the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner/ defendant. 4. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking declaring ownership of the suit property and that lease agreement dated 25th November, 1987 has been determined in April 1991 and further declaration that the defendant is not lessee in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction. 5. The defendant filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, inter alia, alleging that the plaint is liable to be rejected on the following count : (i) The plaint did not specify the cause of action. (ii) The suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2 of C.P.C. since the plaintiff had earlier filed suit bearing No.76/2000. (iii) The suit was barred by limitation. (iv) The plaintiff had paid insufficient court fees. 6. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the application. The learned Trial Judge held that since the suit was filed for declaration and injunction, the contention of the defendant that there was no cause of action to file the suit, did not hold good. The learned Trial Judge further held that the plaintiff had paid sufficient fees and that the suit was barred, was also devoid of any substance. 7. Mr. Dada, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Judge has not dealt with all the grounds taken in the application and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected primarily on the ground that the suit filed was barred by limitation and also under Order II, Rule 2 of C.P.C. But the learned Trial Judge has not given any reasons dealing with the said contentions. 8. Per contra, Mr. He further submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected primarily on the ground that the suit filed was barred by limitation and also under Order II, Rule 2 of C.P.C. But the learned Trial Judge has not given any reasons dealing with the said contentions. 8. Per contra, Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that the defendant/ petitioner has not alleged that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and mere statement in the application that there is no cause of action would not attract Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. He further submitted that the suit was not barred by limitation nor Order II, Rule 2 of C.P.C. was attracted and, therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise the revisional jurisdiction by this Court against the impugned order. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that on a short ground the revision is liable to be allowed. In the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C., the petitioner had taken a plea that the suit filed was barred by limitation. The learned Trial Judge has not even dealt with the said aspect. Having taken the plea that the suit was barred by limitation, the learned Trial Judge ought to have dealt with the same and given finding thereon. On this sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I do not deem it necessary to deal with the rival contentions of the parties on merits since the matter is liable to be remanded to the learned Trial Judge for fresh decision on the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 25th May, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao is quashed and set aside and the learned Trial Judge is directed to pass reasoned order after hearing the parties and dealing with all the contentions of the rival parties, in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.