ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 5.12.16 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bikaner in Civil Suit No.124/15, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, stands rejected. 2. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 18.9.85 alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein in respect of the land comprising Murraba No.113/64, Kila No.5 to 18 and Murraba No. 113/56 Kila No. 1 to 5, total measuring 19 bighas situated at Khajuwala, Tehsil Chhatargarh No.2, Bikaner as also for permanent injunction. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the limitation prescribed for filing the suit for specific performance of the contract is three years, whereas, the present suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 18.9.85 has been filed in the year 2015 after a lapse of about 26 years and thus, apparently, it is barred by limitation. That apart, it was contended that the allotment of the land in question was made in favour of the petitioner under the Rajasthan Colonisation (Sale and Allotment of Government Land in Indira Gandhi Canal Area) Rules, 1975 and as per the conditions of the allotment, the transfer of the land before issuance of the Khatedari Sanad is prohibited and thus, the agreement entered into in respect of the disputed land in respect whereof only allotment letter was issued and no Sanad has been issued being against the public policy cannot be enforced and thus, the suit was liable to be rejected as barred by law. 4. The application stands rejected by the court below observing that as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation for filing the suit for specific performance of the contract is three years, but the limitation for that purpose starts from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused and thus, since no date of performance is mentioned in the agreement dated 18.9.85 and the plaintiff has claimed the communication of refusal to perform the agreement on 26.11.15, from the perusal of the plaint, it cannot be inferred that the suit is barred by limitation. Regarding the enforceability of the agreement, the Court observed that the issue raised can only be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties, more so, when the executor of the agreement under the law cannot escape from the specific performance thereof, even if he acquires valid title over the property subsequently. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the agreement is said to have been executed on 18.9.85, whereas the suit has been filed in the year 2015 and thus, it is hopelessly time barred and deserves to be rejected. Learned counsel urged that as per Condition No. 17 (10) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (General Colony) Conditions, 1955 (Conditions 1955), the transfer of the land before the accrual of the Khatedari rights on issuance of Sanad is prohibited and therefore, the agreement in question admittedly entered into before conferment of the Khatedari Sanad in favour of the petitioner is not enforceable and thus, the Court below has seriously erred in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner seeking rejection of the plaint. 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent has specifically pleaded in the plaint that the petitioner defendant has refused performance of the agreement on 26.11.15 and thus, from perusal of the plaint, in no manner it can be said that it is barred by limitation. Learned counsel submitted that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts which can be decided by the court below on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. Regarding the agreement being enforceable under the law, learned counsel submitted that merely because the execution of the sale deed was dependent upon Sanad being issued in favour of the petitioner, the contract cannot be said to be contingent and it is within the power of the Court to compel the vendor to take steps and obtain Sanad in respect of the land agreed to be sold by him. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of Balwant Singh v. Rajaram, AIR 1975 Rajasthan, 73. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, the agreement executed shall be enforceable if the petitioner acquires transferable title over the land subsequently and thus, the question of plaint being rejected as barred by law does not arise. 7. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, the agreement executed shall be enforceable if the petitioner acquires transferable title over the land subsequently and thus, the question of plaint being rejected as barred by law does not arise. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. It is well settled that while deciding an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, the court is not competent to go into correctness or otherwise of allegations contained in the plaint. The plaint can only be rejected if from bare perusal of the statement in the plaint without any addition or subtraction it appears to be barred by law. 9. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the land in question was transferred by the petitioner in favour of the respondent by way of agreement to sale dated 18.9.85 for consideration of Rs. 2,80,000/- fully paid and the possession of the land also stands handed over to the respondent. As per the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent after obtaining the Khatedari Sanad and approval for transfer. It is averred in the plaint that after payment of entire arrears and obtaining Khatedari Sanad, when the petitioner herein was asked to execute the sale deed, he avoided the same and finally refused to execute the sale deed on 26.11.15. Admittedly, in the instant case, no date was fixed for performance of the contract, rather, the sale deed was to be executed by the petitioner after obtaining the Sanad but he did not take the appropriate steps in this regard and finally refused to execute the sale deed and thus, keeping in view the provisions of Article 54 of the Schedule attached to the Act of 1963, prima faice the limitation has to be reckoned from the date the petitioner refused the performance of the agreement. In any case, it remains a mixed question of law and facts which could only be decided by the Court below on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties. In this view of the matter, the trial court has committed no error in holding that the suit cannot be rejected as barred by limitation under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. 10. In this view of the matter, the trial court has committed no error in holding that the suit cannot be rejected as barred by limitation under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. 10. Coming to the question of enforceability of the agreement executed, keeping in view the provisions of the Conditions 1955, suffice it to say that when it is agreed upon that the sale deed shall be executed after the petitioner obtaining the Khatedari Sanad, the respondent is entitled to compel the petitioner to take appropriate steps to obtain the Sanad in respect of the land agreed to be sold by him. Moreover, in the plaint filed, it is specifically averred that the Khatedari Sanad has been obtained and thereafter when the petitioner was requested to execute the sale deed, he avoided the same and finally refused the performance on 26.11.15 and thus, the petitioner having acquired transferable right subsequently cannot be permitted to contend that the agreement cannot be enforced inasmuch as, on the date when it was executed it was not enforceable under the law. In any case, this contentious issue has to be determined by the Court on the basis of the facts to be proved by the parties on the basis of the evidence to be led and thus, the order impugned passed by the Court below rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-enforceability of the agreement also cannot be faulted with. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 12. In the result, the petition fails. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.