JUDGMENT : Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioners have questioned legality of order dated 15.2.13 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jodhpur Metropolitan City in Civil Original Suit No. 488/12, rejecting an application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC. 2. The relevant facts are that in a human stampede occurred on 30.9.08, at the Chamunda Devi Temple in Jodhpur, owned and managed by the petitioner No. 1, inter alia one Shri Surendra Mehra was killed. The respondents, the father and sister of the deceased preferred a suit for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 ('the Act of 1855'), against the petitioners, which is being contested by them by filing a written statement thereto. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 3. Precisely, the case of the petitioners is that admittedly the cause of action had accrued to the plaintiffs on account of death of Shri Surendra Mehra alleged to have been caused by wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the defendants on 30.9.08 and thus, the limitation for filing the suit under the Act of 1955 being 2 years, the suit filed on 24.12.10, is apparently barred by limitation. 4. The application has been rejected by the court below observing that keeping in view the provisions of Order 7, Rule 6 CPC, the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded the ground for exemption from law of limitation and thus, the question with regard to the limitation shall be decided only after framing the issues, on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that for the cause of action accrued on 30.9.08 and thus, the suit filed by the plaintiffs on 24.12.10 was manifestly barred by time. Learned counsel submitted that once the limitation started running on 30.9.08, the subsequent disability as pleaded in para No. 19 of the plaint even if it is literally accepted as correct cannot stop the limitation and thus, the suit filed is liable to be rejected as barred by limitation. Learned counsel submitted that once the limitation started running on 30.9.08, the subsequent disability as pleaded in para No. 19 of the plaint even if it is literally accepted as correct cannot stop the limitation and thus, the suit filed is liable to be rejected as barred by limitation. Regarding the right of the minor to continue the proceedings in the suit after attaining the age of majority, learned counsel submitted that no facts are pleaded in the plaint in this regard and therefore, alleged disability of a minor to institute the suit cannot be a ground for treating the suit within the limitation when on her behalf the suit has already been filed by the natural guardian, her father. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that viewed from any angle, the plaint as framed is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel urged that it is the duty of the court to look into the question of limitation raised and therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the court below was not justified in deferring the adjudication of the question. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Kamlesh Babu and Others v. Lajpat Rai Sharma and Others' (2008) 12 SCC 577 . 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. It is settled law that while deciding an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (d), the court is not competent to go into correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the plaint. The plaint can only be rejected if the statement in the plaint without any addition or subtraction appears to be barred by law. 8. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1855, on account of death of their son/brother by alleged wrongful act, neglect and default on the part of the defendants, while pleading accrual of cause of action as on 30.9.08. 8. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1855, on account of death of their son/brother by alleged wrongful act, neglect and default on the part of the defendants, while pleading accrual of cause of action as on 30.9.08. It is to be noticed that as per Article 82 as contained in Part III of Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation for filing a suit under the Act of 1855, is two years, and thus in ordinary course without there being any claim for exemption the limitation for filing a suit by the plaintiffs had expired on 30.8.10. But then, in para No. 19 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that on account of death of only son, the plaintiff No. 1 was under mental disability and thus, the suit filed after the disability has ceased, has to be treated within limitation. 9. As per Order 7, Rule 6 CPC, where a suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by law of limitation, the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed and thus, the plaintiff having set out necessary facts in the plaint constituting the ground upon which exemption from law of limitation is claimed, the issue has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties and thus, the order impugned passed by the court below, rejecting the application preferred on behalf of the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, cannot be faulted with. 10. 10. It is pertinent to note that as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act, where a person entitled to institute a suit is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or a insane or an idiot, he may institute the suit within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefore in the third column of the Schedule and thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the question of limitation remains a contentious issue of law and facts between the parties, which has to be decided by the court after framing the issue on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. 11. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The plaintiff No. 2, who at the time of filing of the suit was 17 years of age, a minor, had filed the suit through her natural guardian, the father and thus, she is entitled to pursue the suit on attaining the age of majority and such prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff has been granted by the court below by the order impugned. It is true that the necessary facts claiming exemption have not been specifically pleaded in the plaint but the fact remains that the suit on behalf of plaintiff No. 2, a minor, has been filed by her natural guardian and therefore, she is entitled to claim the exemption from limitation after the disability has ceased. As a matter of fact, by virtue of proviso to Order 7, Rule 6 CPC, the court is empowered to permit the plaintiff to claim exemption from the law of limitation on any ground not set out in the plaint, if such ground is not inconsistent with the grounds set out in the plaint and thus, nothing turns on the question that the facts regarding legal disability of the plaintiff No. 2 have not been specifically set out in the plaint. 12. Thus, viewed from any angle, in the considered opinion of this Court, the court below has committed no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 13. 12. Thus, viewed from any angle, in the considered opinion of this Court, the court below has committed no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 13. In the result, the revision petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.