JUDGMENT PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL) Instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur, District Sonepat, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 (e) CPC has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell as well as for permanent injunction. In the said suit, petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(e) CPC for rejection of the plaint being barred by limitation alleging that agreement to sell was dated 02.02.2009 and sale deed was to be executed by 30.05.2009. The suit could, therefore, be filed by 29.05.2012. Since the suit was filed on 02.06.2012, it was time barred. Learned trial court dismissed the said application vide impugned order on the ground that on 17.06.2009 the petitioner accepted an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards the agreement and issued a receipt thereof impliedly extending the time for execution of sale deed. Hence this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that agreement to sell is dated 02.02.2009 and the last date for execution of the sale deed was 30.05.2009. Since the suit has been filed on 02.06.2012 after expiry of three years, it is barred by limitation. Learned counsel further contended that he is disputing the agreement to sell as well as receipt dated 17.06.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to Articles 54 and 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and contended that suit should have been dismissed straightway. Learned trial court has wrongly and erroneously dismissed the application moved by the petitioner. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, 2005(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 334 and Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Hede and Company, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 157. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of the order reveals that after the expiry of the date i.e. 30.05.2009 petitioner received another amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff and in lieu of that he also executed a receipt. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of the order reveals that after the expiry of the date i.e. 30.05.2009 petitioner received another amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff and in lieu of that he also executed a receipt. Learned trial court has prima facie come to the conclusion that after the subsequent payment period for executing the sale deed impliedly stands extended. Perusal of receipt (Annexure P-1) shows that amount of Rs.8,00,000/- has been received on 17.06.2009. It is clear from the receipt itself that this payment is against part of consideration of Rs.38,21,000/-; meaning thereby it refers to the agreement and it is attached with the agreement to sell. It is clear indication that part payment was made on 17.06.2009, therefore, suit appears to be within limitation being filed on 02.06.2012 and the application moved by the petitioner has been rightly dismissed. In the facts of the present case, judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable because there is a specific subsequent payment which appears to be made for purpose of extension of time. However, it is to be determined at the time of trial whether time has been extended or not. Otherwise also it is settled proposition of law that question of limitation is not purely a question of law, it is mixed question of law and facts and plaint cannot be rejected on ground of limitation if disputed facts are involved. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is disputing the receipt as well as the agreement to sell cannot be decided in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It will only be decided after the parties lead evidence. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed.