Judgment : This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 29.04.2014, in I.A.No.1702 of 2013 in O.S.No.588 of 2012, on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above-mentioned suit against the petitioner/defendant for cancellation of sale deed No.7152/91, dated 21.08.1991, to the extent of plot bearing No.B5 in Survey Nos.108, 109, 113, 114 and 116, admeasuring 300 sq.yards, of Medipally Village, Uppal Mandal (presently Gatkesar Mandal), Ranga Reddy District and restrain him and his agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the plot. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1702 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. He pleaded that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and therefore, it is liable to be rejected under Clause (a) of Rule 11. He has also pleaded that as the suit is barred by law of limitation, Clause (d) of Rule 11 is also attracted. The lower Court rejected the application by the order under revision. At the hearing, Sri Pavan Kumar Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner, made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the lower Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in dismissing of the petitioner’s application. Order VII Rule 11 provides for various grounds on which a plaint can be rejected. These grounds include those mentioned in Clauses (a) and (d) which read as under: “(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. xxxx” With respect to Clause (a), I have perused the plaint. Para-15 of the plaint is concerned with cause of action. The plaint has narrated several events and dates on which cause of action purportedly arose. Therefore, ex facie, this is not a case where the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. Even assuming that the contents of the plaint relating to cause of action may not be correct, the Court will not embark upon a roving enquiry on this aspect while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11. All that the Court needs to examine at that stage is whether the plaint contains pleadings relating to cause of action. Once the Court is satisfied that the plaint does not contain such pleadings, it will not go further. All that the Court needs to examine at that stage is whether the plaint contains pleadings relating to cause of action. Once the Court is satisfied that the plaint does not contain such pleadings, it will not go further. With regard to second ground, namely, whether the suit is barred by any law, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the dates mentioned in the paragraphs relating to cause of action, it is evident that the suit is clearly barred by limitation. There appears to be a misconception that the time barred suits fall within the ambit of Clause (d) of Rule 11. In my opinion, the said Clause will be attracted only if the Court is satisfied from the statement in the plaint that filing of suit itself is barred by any law i.e., certain statutes prohibit filing of civil suits. To illustrate, Section 170 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 bars the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to adjudicate on the legality of any action taken or decision given by the Returning Officer or any other person appointed under the said Act; Section 6E of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 bars the jurisdiction of any Court, Tribunal or other authority to make order on seizures made under Section 3 of the said Act. Where, by express language of any statutory provision, jurisdiction of civil Courts is barred, suits filed in violation of such statutory provisions fall under Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. The question whether a suit is barred by limitation or not is a mixed question of law and fact, and therefore such a question cannot be adjudicated at the threshold before trial is held. Hence, the ground that the suit is barred by limitation is not comprehended by the provisions of Order VII Rule 11. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the lower Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2630 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.