JUDGMENT 1. - After service of notice to the respondent, the court had directed to hear the appeal finally at the admission stage vide order dated 20.12.2012. 2. Nobody appears for the respondent though duly served. Hence, the appeal is being disposed of after hearing learned counsel Mr. R.K. Daga for the appellant. 3. The present appeal arises out of the order order dated 11.8.2008 of the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") in Civil Suit No.1136/2006, whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondent-defendant filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel Mr. RK Daga for the appellant that the order in question being decree within the definition of section 2(ii) of CPC, the fist appeal has been filed. He further submitted that the trial court under the misconception of law rejected the plaint of the appellant on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action and on the ground of being barred by limitation. According to him, the para nos. 8,9 and 10 of the plaint clearly disclose the cause of action and question of limitation would be a mixed question of law and fact, which could not be decided in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, for the purpose of holding that the suit is barred under the law. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Daga and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the petitioner plaintiff had filed the suit against the respondent defendant seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 14.2.1996 and for the possession of the suit property and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 12.50 lacs. In the said suit, the respondent-defendant had filed the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the appellant had not paid the requisite court fees and that the suit was barred by law of limitation and that the plaint did not disclose the cause of action. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Daga, the averments made in para nos. 9 and 10 of the plaint clearly show the cause of action for filing the suit. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Daga, the averments made in para nos. 9 and 10 of the plaint clearly show the cause of action for filing the suit. There is much substance in the submissions made by him that the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of being barred by law of limitation under clause(d) of Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC, inasmuch as the question of limitation would be mixed question of law and fact, which could not have been decided unless the parties are permitted to lead evidence. 6. In view of the above, order passed by the trial court being illegal and perverse, the same deserves to be set aside. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the trial court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The trial court is directed to decide the suit in accordance with law.Appeal Allowed. *******