ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. Petitioners/defendants have filed the present revision being aggrieved by the order dated 17-11-2015 by which application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code has been rejected by the trial Court in MJC No. 1/15. 2. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out the illegal construction, partition and separate possession of suit property as well as the properties of partnership firm Ms. Pokharna Brothers, Ratlam. The plaintiff filed the suit under Order 33, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code as an indigent person. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 12 crores without payment of ad-valorem Court fee of Rs. 1.59 lakhs. It is not disputed that plaintiff and defendants are real brothers and other defendants, are family members. Plaintiffs father died on 26-9-1990 and who was a partner in the firm M/s Pokhara Brothers. The plaint has not been registered as a regular civil suit and the proceeding under Order 33, Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code are pending. 3. That the present petitioner defendant No. 4 has filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint on the following grounds. (i) That the suit is time barred as it has been filed after 23 years. (ii) Plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and did not pay the ad-valorem Court fees. (iii) The suit suffers from mis-joinder of parties as sister Smt. Chandanbala and Asha have not been impleaded as a party. (iv) that in absence of partition deed the suit is not maintainable. (v) That the present suit is misuse of process of law. 4. In support of his application written submissions was filed by the defendant No. 4. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing reply. Vide order dated 17-11-2015 learned trial Court rejected the application by a detailed order and each and every objection taken by the petitioner has been answered by the learned trial Judge. 5. Shri Kochatta, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 is sheer abuse of process of law. Vide order dated 17-11-2015 learned trial Court rejected the application by a detailed order and each and every objection taken by the petitioner has been answered by the learned trial Judge. 5. Shri Kochatta, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 is sheer abuse of process of law. The suit is hopelessly time barred and with an intention to harass the defendants and such a suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the initial stage. Plaintiff has not impleaded his sister as defendants, therefore, not entitled for a decree of partition. He further submits that trial Court has committed a grave error while rejecting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. 6. Per contra, Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the suit is yet to be registered, therefore, at this stage the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable. He has placed reliance over the judgment in the case of District Official Receiver, Amritsar v. Firm Sohan Lal Ramji Dass and others, reported in AIR 1940 Lahore 446. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. That the suit filed by the plaintiff is registered as MJC because of the application under Order 33, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code is pending. If such an application is rejected then the plaintiff would be required to pay ad valorem Court fee then only the suit would be registered as a regular civil suit. 9. In the case of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2003(2) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 320 = (2003) 1 SCC 557 while considering application under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code the Apex Court has held that trial Court can exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code at any stage of the suit before registering the suit or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. The aforesaid view has been followed by the Supreme Court in the case of The Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in 2012(4) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 578 = 2012 (8) SCC 706 , therefore, the objection taken by Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents is liable to be rejected and the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is held to be maintainable even before registration of the plaint. Even otherwise learned Civil Judge did not reject the application on this ground and considered the same on merit of the case. 10. So far as the objection of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties are concerned that can be considered after the suit is registered for which the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Lala Nahata and another v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, reported in 2007 MPU Online (S.C.) 9 = AIR 2007 SC 1247 has held that the suit which is bad for mis-joinder of parties is a suit barred by a law and is not liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. In the aforesaid order the Supreme Court has held as under : Thus, when one considers Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code with particular reference to Clause (d), it is difficult to say that a suit which is bad for mis-joinder of parties or mis-joinder of causes of action, is a suit barred by any law. A procedural objection to the impleading of parties or to the joinder of causes of action of or the frame of the suit could be successfully urged only as a procedural objection which may enable the Court either to permit the continuance of the suit as it is or to direct the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect to proceed with a part of the suit or even to try the causes of action joined in the suit as separate suits. 11. In the case of Kamla v. K. T. Eshwara Sa, reported in 2008 MPU Online (S.C.) 8 = (2008) 12 SCC 661 the Apex Court has held that Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code has limited application. For its applicability it must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averment made in the plaint. For its applicability it must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averment made in the plaint. What would be relevant for invoking Order 7, Rule 11 (d) Civil Procedure Code are the averment made in the plaint. For that purpose there cannot be any addition or subtraction. For the purpose of invoking the said provision, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the Court at that stage. This is a case where defendant raised the objection that partition has taken place in the family. The Apex Court in para-32 of the aforesaid judgment has held that whether partition has taken place or not with metes and bounds is a question which cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code. Whether any property is I available for partition is itself a question of fact. In the present suit also defendant I has stated that partition has taken place in the family but the same cannot be decided as laid down by the Apex Court while considering the application under Order 7, Rule 11. 12. So far as the objection taken by the defendant about the valuation and payment of stamp duty is concerned the application under Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code is yet to be decided by the Court. While deciding the said application the Court may direct the plaintiff to pay the necessary Court fees. However, on this issue the plaint is not liable to be rejected at the first instance and the Court grants liberty to the plaintiff to correct the valuation and pay the Court fees. The Apex Court in the case of Mayor (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 100 has held that plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of allegation made by the defendant in the written statement or the application for rejection of the plaint. The Apex Court in the case of Mayor (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 100 has held that plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of allegation made by the defendant in the written statement or the application for rejection of the plaint. Essentially whether the plaint discloses a cause of action is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct A cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases. In the case of Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, reported in 2005 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 5 = (2005) 7 SCC 510 the Apex Court has held that disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The statement in the plaint without' addition or subtraction must show that it is barred by any law to attract application of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the present case except the point of limitation the defendant has not raised any ground that the present suit is barred under the law as has been held above. The issue of limitation is a mix question of law and fact which cannot be decided at this stage. The Apex Court has held as under in the case of Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. v. Hanuman Seva Trust and others, reported in 2005 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 6 = (2006) 5 SCC 662 . 8. After hearing counsel for the parties, going through the plaint, application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d), Civil Procedure Code and the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court, we are of the opinion that the present suit could not be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of an issue of limitation and taking of evidence. Question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Ex facie in the present case on the reading of the plaint it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time. Question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Ex facie in the present case on the reading of the plaint it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time. The findings recorded by the High Court touching upon the merits of the dispute are set aside but the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is affirmed. We agree with the view taken by the trial Court that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Learned trial Court vide order dated 17-11-2015 considered each and every objection of the petitioner/defendant and rejected the application in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as the High Court, therefore, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order. The petition has no substance. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.