ORDER 1. None for the contesting respondent No.1, despite service of notices as per process server's report dated 18.1.2016. Hence, this revision petition is taken up for consideration. 2. The controversy involved in this revision petition under section 115 CPC at the instance of defendants against the order dated 8.8.2015 passed in Civil Suit No.106A/2014 by III Civil Judge, Class-II, Sheopur, revolves around the scope of the provision under Order VII rule 11(d) CPC. For ready reference, Order VII rule 11(d) CPC reads as under : “Order VII Plaint. …. …. .... 11. Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : - …. …. …. (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : 3. Before addressing upon the aforesaid proposition, it is necessary to reiterate the relevant facts. A suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed in relation to parcels of agricultural land situated in village Baroda, District Sheopur as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint and as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the writ petition on the strength of continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession over the suit land for the last 12 years to the knowledge of the defendants and, therefore, perfected title by adverse possession. 4. Petitioners/defendants have filed application under Order VII rule 1(d) CPC asserting that the suit is barred by law in view of the latest pronouncement by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala [2014(1)MPWN 64= (2014)1 SCC 669 ], as the plaintiff cannot claim title to the property with the plea of adverse possession. Learned counsel contends that the aforesaid pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in fact and in effect is a declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is binding on all Courts within the territory of India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Under these circumstances, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII rule 11(d) CPC ought to have been considered on merits. It is submitted that as the trial Court is bound by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court, the trial Court was obliged to declare the suit as barred by law in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard learned counsel. 6. It is submitted that as the trial Court is bound by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court, the trial Court was obliged to declare the suit as barred by law in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard learned counsel. 6. Order VII deals with 'plaint' and Order VII rule 11(d) CPC deals with 'grounds for rejection of the plaint'. A careful reading of Order VII rule 11(d) quoted above clearly suggests that if the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected. Further, a careful reading of the averments made in the plaint, particularly paragraphs 3 and 5 as well as the prayer clause, it is unambiguously clear that the declaration of title is solely and exclusively based on the plea of perfection of title by adverse possession. (Emphasis supplied) 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdwara Sahib (supra), in paragraph 9 has declared the law to the effect that no claim for declaration of title can be made and can be decreed on the strength of perfection of title by adverse possession. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts within the territory of India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court fell in error having rejected the application filed under Order VII rule 11(d) CPC by the defendants/petitioners for the reasons stated above and committed patent jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The suit stands dismissed. Civil revision stands allowed and disposed of, accordingly.