Judgment : Heard Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges the order passed by the lower appellate Court dated 30/10/2010 in Regular Civil Appeal No.134/2009 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 challenging the order passed by the learned trial Judge rejecting the plaint filed by the said respondent came to be allowed. 3. Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that according to the appellants the plaint filed by the respondent no.1 is to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on two counts. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and further the suit is barred by Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Counsel further pointed out that respondent no.1 is merely a contractor and according to him he has no personal interest in the suit property. The learned Counsel has taken me through the plaint and pointed out that there are no averments made therein as against the appellants which discloses any cause of action and, as such, the plaint ought to have been rejected. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate Court and pointed out that the lower appellate Court has totally misconstrued the submissions that the suit filed by respondent no.1 was barred by law of limitation, when no such contention was raised by the appellant. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in view of the erroneous finding given by the lower appellate Court the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the specific pleadings in the plaint and pointed out that there are averments therein to the effect that the appellants were not entitled to grant any permission to the respondents no.2 & 3 to put up a mobile tower over the suit building. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the specific pleadings in the plaint and pointed out that there are averments therein to the effect that the appellants were not entitled to grant any permission to the respondents no.2 & 3 to put up a mobile tower over the suit building. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that though respondent no.1 was originally a contractor it is not in dispute that respondent no.1 constructed the suit building and as per the terms of agreement some part of the built up area was allotted to respondent no.1. The learned Senior Counsel has further pointed out that the appeal has no merits and the same deserves to be rejected. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and perused the records. Dealing with the contentions of Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, on minute examination of the plaint specially paras 10,14,17 and other averments made in the remaining paras it appears that the case of the respondent no.1 is that according to the respondent the disputed permission granted to put up a mobile tower on the terrace of the suit building is unauthorised. The respondent no.1/plaintiff who claimes some right thereon, which is otherwise disputed by the appellants is a matter which will have to be adjudicated in the suit after hearing the parties in accordance with law. 6. Be that as it may, on bare perusal of the plaint at the said paras, I find that the contention of Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, that the plaint does not disclose cause of action against the appellants cannot be accepted. The lower appellate Court was as such justified to pass the impugned order on that count. 7. With regard to the next contention of Shri Sudin Usgaonkar to the effect that relief sought by the appellant is barred under Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, I find that the said aspect cannot be a ground to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The fact as to whether respondent no.1 has any personal interest in the disputed area is something which will have to be adjudicated by the learned Judge on merits. The fact as to whether respondent no.1 has any personal interest in the disputed area is something which will have to be adjudicated by the learned Judge on merits. Merely on the basis of such averments it is not open to the Court to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code as the suit cannot be said to be barred especially as the respondent no.1 also claims some interest in the suit property. Though Shri Sudin Usgaonkar may be justified to contend that the lower appellate Court has not dealt with the said aspect in view of what has been held herein I find no justification to interfere in the impugned judgment. 8. With regard to the next contention that point of limitation was not an issue before the lower appellate Court, I find that the said contention is justified. In any event, merely because such finding has been rendered does not in any way call for interference in the impugned judgment by this Court. 9. Hence, I find no merit in the above appeal and the same deserves to be rejected . It is made clear that any observation made in the impugned order as well in the order passed herein shall not influence the learned Judge while deciding the suit on merits. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.