JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the Order Nos.26 & 27 dated December 6, 2012 and January 15, 2013 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Baruipur in Title Suit No.117 of 2011 thereby rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. The plaintiff/opposite party no.1 herein instituted the above-mentioned suit for declaration of tenancy right and permanent injunction against the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 before the learned Trial Judge. In that suit, the defendant no.1/petitioner herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. contending, inter alia, that the said suit is barred by limitation. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff has contended that he is a tenant in respect of the suit premises as described in the schedule to the plaint, but, the original landlord, i.e., the defendant no.2 had refused to accept rent from the plaintiff in 1987. Thereafter, when he tendered rent by money order, it was not accepted. Ultimately, on April 24, 2011, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly from the premises in suit, the suit has been filed. Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has contended before this Bench that according to the plaint case, the cause of action arose in 1987 when the original landlord, i.e., the defendant no.2 had refused to accept the rent from the plaintiff. This is the first cause of action and so, this shall be treated as the date of cause of action to institute the suit and since according to Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the suit is to be instituted within 3 years from the date of cause of action arose first and the present suit having been filed in the year 2011, i.e., after a long period from 1987, the plaint should be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decision of Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & anr. v. Union of India & anr. v. Union of India & anr. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 126 particularly the paragraph nos.24 to 30 and also the decision of State Bank of India Staff Association v. Popat & Kotech Property reported in 2000(2) CLJ 62 particularly the paragraph no.15 and thus, he has contended that the cause of action having accrued first in 1987 and the suit having not been filed within 3 years from the date of first cause of action, the suit is barred by limitation and in an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) the ground of limitation could well be taken for rejection of the plaint. Having considered the above situation and those two decisions, I am of the view that instead of disposing of the application outright by this Bench, it would be fit and proper to direct the learned Trial Judge to consider the above-mentioned decisions and then to pass appropriate orders or the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. For that reason, the impugned order needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside directing the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the .P.C. afresh keeping in view the ratio of the aforesaid two decisions. It is also recorded that this does not mean that the learned Trial Judge is debarred from taking note of any other decisions, if any, referred to by the parties. The learned Trial Judge is, therefore, directed to dispose of the said application for rejection of the plaint within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order to him. The revisional application is disposed of in the manner indicated above. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.