Judgment : 1) The civil revision application is filed against the order made on Exhibit 40 which was filed in Special Civil Suit No.393 of 2007 pending before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. The application was filed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present applicants. It is their contention that the suit is not within limitation. The application is rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court has observed that from the contents of the paint and from the cause of action shown in the plaint, it cannot be said at present the suit is not within limitation. Both the sides are heard. 2) This Court has gone through the copy of plaint and also the written statement. This Court has also gone through the terms and conditions of so called agreement. The suit is filed for specific performance of contract against the present applicants. The agreement took place on 1-4-1991. The defendant’s predecessor agreed to sell area of 6000 square feet from CTS No.15854/A situated at Daudpura, Aurangabad. The property was not developed but promise was given to give plot facing to 80 feet D.P. road coming from Sahanoorwadi and proceeding to Hotel Amarpreet. First installment of Rs.25000/- was accepted on the date of agreement. The second installment was also given. Last installment was to be given on the date of execution of sale deed and sale deed was to be executed after final sanction of revised lay out plan by competent authority. It is the case of the plaintiff that owner did not take steps for getting aforesaid sanction for years together. It is contended that after the death of the owner when plaintiff approached the heirs of the owner in March 2007 to request them to execute sale deed, they promised to execute within 2 to 3 months but then they avoided to execute the sale deed. It is contend that one more suit is pending between the parties and the defendants are interested in putting pressure on the plaintiff to see that the other suit is compromised. 3) The defendants contended that there was no lay out plan and so nature of contract was contingent contract and so no relief can be given. The agreement is disputed. 3) The defendants contended that there was no lay out plan and so nature of contract was contingent contract and so no relief can be given. The agreement is disputed. Alternate defence is taken that their predecessor was in need of money and when he demanded Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff, plaintiff asked the deceased to give something in writing and so the document was created. 4) The defendants requested to frame limitation issue as preliminary issue and give decision on that issue. This application was heard and the trial Court held that in view of the facts of the case the issue cannot be decided as preliminary issue. The trial Court has observed that it is desirable for the parties to lead evidence and on this point also full-fledged enquiry is necessary in view of the rival contentions. 5) Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the case reported as (2004) 3 SCC 137 (Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner). The Apex Court has discussed the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is observed that whenever the matter is hit by any of the infirmities provided in four clauses of Rule 11, it is duty of the Court to reject the plaint. There cannot be dispute over this proposition. Further it is also observed that plaint needs to be read in meaningful manner. On behalf of the respondent, reliance is placed on some reported case like (1) AIR 2006 SC 1556 (Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah v. Anton Elis Farel), (2) AIR 2013 SC 367 (Chandradhoja Sahoo v. State of Orissa), (3) 2006 (6) ALL MR 56 (S.C.) (Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta); and, (4) AIR 2004 SC 1801 (Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner). 6) In the first case, cited supra for respondent, when the suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of contract and when no date was fixed for performance of contract the Court held that the matter fell under second limb of Article 54 of Limitation Act and question of limitation required investigation on the terms of agreement and on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. The Apex Court observed that dismissal of suit as barred by limitation by deciding issue of limitation as preliminary issue in such a case is not proper. These observations are applicable to instant case. The Apex Court observed that dismissal of suit as barred by limitation by deciding issue of limitation as preliminary issue in such a case is not proper. These observations are applicable to instant case. 7) In the case of Ramesh B. Desai (cited supra) the Apex Court has laid down that Order 14 Rule 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure does not confer jurisdiction upon Court to try suit on mixed issue of law and fact as a preliminary issue. It is observed that where decision on issue of law depends upon decision of fact, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. There cannot be any dispute over this proposition. This proposition is also applicable to the present case. 8) In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court holds that it is a mixed question of law and fact and the plaintiff needs to be given opportunity to prove by leading evidence that it was necessary for the defendant to perform his part of contract and only after that the cause of action would have arisen. This Court holds that the trial Court has not committed any error in giving aforesaid decision. No interference is possible in the order of the trial Court. 9) In the result, the civil revision application stands dismissed.