JUDGMENT Heard. Admit. Heard forthwith with consent of the parties. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Special Civil Suit No. 11/2012, the present civil revision application is filed. The petitioners-original defendant nos. 2 and 3 claim that the suit is barred by limitation. The respondent no. 1 plaintiff has claimed a right of preemption on the basis of the special contract at the time of partition of the properties between him and the respondent no.2. In the plaint, it was submitted that in breach of the said term of pre-emption, the respondent no. 2 has sold the suit plot to the present petitioners-defendant nos. 2 & 3 on 12.05.2009. The plaintiff had issued notice to the defendant no.1 i.e. Respondent no. 2 on 1.8.2011. No reply was given and therefore when inquiry was made by the respondent no. 1plaintiff it was found that the respondent no.2 has executed the aforesaid sale deed on 12.5.2009 in favour of the present petitioners and hence suit was filed on 27.5.2012. Article 97 of the Limitation Act is applicable in the present case. The provision runs as under: Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run. 97. To enforce a right of preemption whether the right is founded on law or general usage or on special contract. One year When the purchaser takes under the sale sought to be impeached, physical possession of the whole or part of the property sold, or, whether the subject matter of the sale does not admit of physical possession of the whole or part of the property, when the instrument of sale is registered. The learned trial court held that whether the suit is barred by limitation in the present case is the mixed question of law and facts and hence neither the plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor it can be decided as a preliminary issue. Hence, the present revision application. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Anand Deshpande vehemently submitted that the reading of the plaint as a whole would show that while the sale deed was executed on 12.5.2009, the suit is filed on 27.3.2012. This fact, thus, would show that there is no need of adducing any evidence. Hence, the present revision application. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Anand Deshpande vehemently submitted that the reading of the plaint as a whole would show that while the sale deed was executed on 12.5.2009, the suit is filed on 27.3.2012. This fact, thus, would show that there is no need of adducing any evidence. The plea of limitation in the present case is not a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the learned trial court ought to have rejected the plaint. He relied on the ratio in the cases of (i) Kanayalal Madhavji Thakkar Vs. Shri Padamanabh Builders reported in 2011(1) Mh.L.J. 939 , (ii) Churh of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 Supreme Court cases 706 and (iii) Gojabai Vs. Gangabi Ramchandra Pawar and another reported in AIR 1980 SC 1436 . The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supports the reasons forwarded by the learned trial court. Upon considering the matter, in my view, there is no merit in the revision application. The same is, therefore, being dismissed for the reasons to follow: REASONS. The provisions of Article 97 show that either the date of sale deed when the property in question does not admit of physical possession or in case the property in question admits the physical possession then the date of taking physical possession by the purchaser would be a starting point for prescribed period of limitation. In the present case, admittedly, the suit property is a fallow land. In the circumstances, as to whether an open physical possession of the vendee, the present petitioners, was there or not and the time when he took physical possession would be a matter to be considered by the trial court to come to the conclusion as to whether the suit is within limitation or not. The trial court, therefore, was right in concluding that the plea of limitation in the present case is the mixed question of law and facts. In the case of Kanayalal Madhavji Thakkar Vs. Shri Padamanabh Builders and Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust (cited supra) the principle as to when the plaint should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 was reiterated. In the case of Kanayalal Madhavji Thakkar Vs. Shri Padamanabh Builders and Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust (cited supra) the principle as to when the plaint should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 was reiterated. There is no dispute that an irresponsible suit should be nipped in the bud even before registration of the same and before issuing notice to the other side. At that time only the pleadings in the plaint are required to be taken into consideration to find out as to whether the suit is barred by law including law of limitation. In the present case, however, I have already noticed the averments made by the respondent no. 1 in the plaint as detailed supra. In the case of Gojabai Vs. Gangabi Ramchandra Pawar and another (cited supra), after a full fledged trial in the suit for seeking preemption certain amendments were tried to be made. Already material was there before the court to find out as to whether the suit was within limitation. Still the High Court came to the conclusion that the matter be remanded back to the trial court for further inquiry. In these circumstances, it was held that as enough material before the High Court was there to come to the conclusion that possession of the property had been delivered by the first respondent to the second respondent therein on specific date, the High Court ought to have given the findings. The ratio, therefore, would not be applicable in the present case as the trial is yet to begin. In the circumstances, the following order. ORDER. The civil revision application is dismissed, without any order as to costs.