JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintained against the impugned order, dated 18.11.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed. 2. The key facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) has maintained a suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioners/defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendants’) alleging that he (plaintiff) is owner-in-possession of land comprised in Khata No.31, Khatauni No.57, Khasra Nos.182, 194, 197, 198, 202, 203, 207, 208, 235, 236, 288, 327, 334, 336, 337, 341, 349, 364, 378, 379, 387, 388, 396, 403 and 404, kita 25, area measuring 1-67-77 hectares and Khata No.32, Khatauni No.56, Khasra No.352, area measuring 0-00-90 hectares, situated in Mahal Salehar, Mauza Bhumpal, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, (H.P.) (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’). As per the plaintiff, the suit land is joint Hindu coparcenary and ancestral property and Prem Dass, inherited the land from his father Shri Lachhman and Will dated 12.6.1998, vide No.148, is wrong, illegal and void. The plaintiff challenged the Will, dated 12.6.1998, which was allegedly executed by Prem Dass. It is further averred that deceased Prem Dass, was never executed any Will of his property. The cause of action arose, when the defendants threatened to alienate the suit property on the basis of alleged Will. 3. Defendant No.1 filed a separate written statement and taken preliminary objections that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit, as the death of their father took place in the year 2003. The plaintiff personally got recorded the Will, dated 12.6.1998, vide rapat No.142, on 8.12.2004. Plaintiff was well aware of the alleged Will, dated 12.6.1998 and on the basis of said Will, plaintiff maintained two suits titled Ajit Singh vs. Rattan Chand, bearing Civil Suit No.187/2008 and Ajit Singh vs. Ram Kishan and others, bearing Civil Suit No.188/2008. Both the Civil Suits were maintained, on the basis of mutation No.38 and rapat No.142, on the basis of Will, dated 12.6.1998. Both the Civil Suits were maintained, on the basis of mutation No.38 and rapat No.142, on the basis of Will, dated 12.6.1998. Both the Civil Suits aforementioned were compromised by the plaintiff, as such, no cause of action arose in the year 2015, therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code and for that purpose separate application filed and the said application was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the impugned order, dated 18.11.2016, passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendants maintained the present petition. 4. Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/defendants has argued that the impugned order dated 18.11.2016, passed by the learned Trial Court is against the law, as the learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the Will was executed in the year 1998 and now, the suit is highly time barred. He has also relied upon the judgment in Suresh Kumar Dagla vs. Sarwan and another, 2014 (14) Supreme Court Cases 254. On the other hand, Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff has vehemently argued that as soon as respondent/plaintiff came to know about the alleged fraud played by the defendant, he maintained a suit. He has further argued that some Will of Ratni Devi, was produced and the judgment cited by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/defendants is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. In rebuttal, Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/defendants has argued that the suit is hopelessly time barred and the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court in not returning the plaint is against the law, as plaint was beyond the limitation and without cause of action and there is grave illegality committed by the learned Trial Court in dismissing the application of defendant No.4. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 7. After going through the record, this Court finds that defendant No.4 maintained an application to reject the plaint. In the present suit, the plaintiff claimed that the suit land is joint Hindu coparcenary and ancestral property and Prem Dass, inherited the suit land from his father Lachhman and Will, dated 12.6.1998, is illegal and void. 7. After going through the record, this Court finds that defendant No.4 maintained an application to reject the plaint. In the present suit, the plaintiff claimed that the suit land is joint Hindu coparcenary and ancestral property and Prem Dass, inherited the suit land from his father Lachhman and Will, dated 12.6.1998, is illegal and void. After considering the averments, as made in the present plaint, the plaintiff has claimed that cause of action arose to him, when defendant No.4 threatened to alienate the suit land, meaning thereby that as per the plaintiff cause of action has accrued to him only when defendant No.4 threatened to alienate the suit land, which is ancestral property, as the question of limitation, cause of action and maintainability are required to be adjudicated in the suit and as per the plaintiff, the suit property is coparcenary property and in joint ownership of the parties, so this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is just on the basis of averments, as has come on record and in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaint is required to be rejected at the outset. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in Suresh Kumar Dagla vs. Sarwan and another, 2014 (14) Supreme Court Cases 254, wherein it has been held as under : “10. The first respondent has not disputed that fact that he had already instituted a case alleging therein that the appellant inter alia cheated him while purchasing the said land which was rejected on 30-9-1993. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the first respondent had knowledge about the sale deed and as back as in the month of September 1993. 11. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the first respondent had knowledge about the sale deed and as back as in the month of September 1993. 11. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the suit was barred by limitation and thereby the first respondent cannot derive any benefit in terms of Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.” The facts of the present case are different, as the plaintiff is not admitting the factum of attestation of mutation in favour of defendant No.4 and his case is that the suit property is coparcenary and ancestral property in joint ownership of all the coparceners, cause of action accrued to the plaintiff, when defendant No.4 showed his intention and made efforts to transfer the suit property, so in the present case, there is nothing to conclude that the plaintiff was having knowledge with regard to the execution of Will, so the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. In these circumstances, this Court finds that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order, dated 18.11.2016, passed by the learned Trial Court. Otherwise also, the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not required to be exercised in the present case, as the order passed by the learned Trial Court is as per law and after appreciating the facts, which have come on record to its true perspective. 10. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 30th October, 2017. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.