Shashi Kant Gupta, J.;- Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. The SCC suit was filed by the landlord in the year 2007 for arrears of rent and ejectment. Thereafter, the written statement was filed by the petitioner on 4.2.2008 and issues were framed by the trial court. The trial court framed Issue No. 5 as to whether the suit is barred by the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC or not. During the course of proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating therein that the suit should have been filed within three years after terminating the tenancy of the tenant and the suit of the landlord is time barred and therefore, the suit of the landlord is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The landlord opposed the application of the petitioner by filing an application wherein it was stated that the issues were framed on 13.10.2009 and the application filed by the landlord is just to delay the proceedings of the suit. The trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that Issue No. 5, as to whether the suit is maintainable or barred under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has already been framed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 15.7.2010 passed by the JSSC/Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Etah, the petitioner preferred a SCC Revision No. Nil of 2010 which too was dismissed by order dated 1.9.2010 as not maintainable. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the averment contained in the plaint would indicate that the suit filed by the landlord is barred by Article 113 of the Indian Limitation Act inasmuch as per own plaint averment, cause of action for filing the suit arose on 25.9.2002 on the basis of notice dated 24.8.2002, as such, the proceedings having been initiated in the year 2007 are apparently beyond the statutory period of limitation of three years as prescribed under the Indian Limitation Act, as such, the plaint ought to have been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the view taken by the trial court in declining to examine the objection of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground of necessary issue having been framed in the suit apparently amounts to failure in exercise of jurisdiction by the trail court inasmuch as Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cast statutory duty on the court concerned to examine as to whether the suit is barred under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and as such, the objection so raised by the petitioner ought to have been examined by the trail court as a preliminary objection inasmuch as adjudication thereof required neither of the parties to lead any evidence. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Bare perusal of the record shows that the courts below have taken a very technical view of the matter and have rejected the application of the petitioner mechanically by a slip shod order. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the Issue No. 5 is decided as a preliminary issue. In my opinion, issuance of notice to the respondents will unnecessarily delay the proceedings pending before the Court below, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 15.7.2010 passed by the trial court as well as the order dated 1.9.2010 passed by the revisional court are hereby set aside and the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the court below to decide the Issue No. 5, as to whether the suit is barred under Order 7 Rule 11 or not as a preliminary issue within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assured the Court that the petitioner will not cause any delay in the disposal of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a certified copy of this order before the court below within a period of 10 days from today. 8. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assured the Court that the petitioner will not cause any delay in the disposal of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file a certified copy of this order before the court below within a period of 10 days from today. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits and it will be independent exercise of the concerned court to pass appropriate order while deciding the Issue No. 5. 9. Since plaintiff-respondent is not present before the Court, it is open for him to apply for recall/modification of the order of this Court, in case he feels aggrieved from this order.