ORDER : 1. The first defendant filed the present Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 06.04.2016 made in O.S.No.502/2015 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, dismissing I.A.No.3 filed by the first defendant/petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The first respondent who is the plaintiff, filed suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 02.04.2010 and to direct the defendants jointly and severally execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and convey right, title and interest of the suit schedule property by the said deed of sale, within the time limit fixed or prescribed by the Court in the manner and form required under law; and in the event, the defendants fail to execute the registered sale deed, to execute registered sale deed through the Court, for and on behalf of the defendants at their cost in favour of the plaintiff; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents or any person/s claiming through them or under any form of authority alleged to have derived from the defendants, permanently from disturbing the plaintiff in any manner from enjoying the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and further to restrain them from their agents, assigns etc., from entering upon or trespassing upon the suit schedule property. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the first defendant had constituted and appointed the 2nd defendant as his registered general power of attorney to look after and deal with the suit schedule property, including every form of conveyance, sale or otherwise. The said document dated 12.06.1997 was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru. The second defendant, on the strength of the said irrevocable registered general power of attorney dated 12.06.1997, agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, vide agreement dated 02.04.2010 for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and received an advance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on the same day, by cash and the same has been acknowledged by the 2nd defendant, stipulating the time for registration of the sale deed as eleven months from the date of execution of the agreement in question. Further, on the demand made by the 2nd defendant, plaintiff paid additional advance of Rs.5,00,000/- on 01.08.2010, which is also acknowledged by the 2nd defendant. On the said date, the 2nd defendant handed over the originals of registered sale deed dated 24.10.1970 executed in favour of the vendor of the first defendant, RTC, M.R. extract and encumbrance certificates, to the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant, instead of honouring his promise by receiving the balance sale consideration, pressurized the plaintiff to part with another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 01.11.2010, on which date, the 2nd defendant, by mutual consent, agreed to extend the time stipulated in the agreement by another six months, ending on the last day of September 2011. Thereafter, again the 2nd defendant pressurized the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration which ended up in plaintiff paying Rs.7,00,000/- to the defendant on 15.09.2011. The 2nd defendant, on receipt of the entire sale consideration, on the said date, delivered the physical possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and also agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or her nominee, as and when demanded by the plaintiff. Ever since then, i.e., since 15.09.2011, plaintiff is in actual enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule property as the owner thereof, in every manner. All these transactions are within the knowledge of the first defendant. When things stood thus, plaintiff was shocked and surprised when she came across a publication of notice in ‘Kannada Prabha’ dated 20.12.2014, issued by the 1st defendant, canceling the irrevocable general power of attorney dated 12.06.1997 executed by him in favour of the 2nd defendant. Immediately upon coming to know of the paper publication, the plaintiff caused a notice dated 26.01.2015 to the defendants, calling upon them to execute the registered sale deed in her favour, within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. Instead of complying with the plaintiff’s demand, which is legally tenable, the 1st defendant issued a bald reply dated 12.02.2015 denying the averments with no substantiation whatsoever. Therefore, plaintiff filed suit to enforce the agreement showing the cause of action at paragraph 15 of the plaint. 4. Instead of complying with the plaintiff’s demand, which is legally tenable, the 1st defendant issued a bald reply dated 12.02.2015 denying the averments with no substantiation whatsoever. Therefore, plaintiff filed suit to enforce the agreement showing the cause of action at paragraph 15 of the plaint. 4. The 1st defendant filed written statement, denied all the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous, unlawful and is filed only to make an unlawful gain on insufficiency of grounds. It was contended that the plaintiff does not possess prima facie case and balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff and the suit is liable to be dismissed, since the suit is not properly valued and requisite court fee is not paid. It was further contended that on account of the misunderstanding that crept up between the defendants, the 1st defendant thought fit to cancel the power of attorney dated 12.06.1997 executed in favour of the 2nd defendant and in pursuance of the same, necessary steps were taken to cancel the power of attorney through cancellation deed dated 16.12.2014. It was further contended that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant colluded with each other and managed to bring into existence the alleged agreement of sale and also receipts/endorsements evidencing the alleged receipt of sale consideration. The said documents are concocted and cooked up for the purpose of the case with a view to cheat and defraud the interest of the 1st defendant in a dubious manner. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are making hectic efforts to make unlawful gain and illegal enrichment and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Along with the written statement, the 1st defendant also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the suit is filed to enforce the agreement of sale dated 02.04.2010. A perusal of the plaint averments reveals that the alleged agreement is executed on 02.04.2010 fixing the date for performance of the contract within eleven months. Thus, the date for performing the alleged contract expires on 02.03.2011. In view of the proviso Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the period fixed for filing the suit of the type on hand is three years there from. Thus the suit is barred by limitation and therefore, suit is not maintainable. Thus, the date for performing the alleged contract expires on 02.03.2011. In view of the proviso Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the period fixed for filing the suit of the type on hand is three years there from. Thus the suit is barred by limitation and therefore, suit is not maintainable. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing objections contending that the limitation being mixed question of law and facts, suit cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleading, framing of issues to that effect and taking evidence in support of the said pleading. It was further contended that, a plain reading of the proviso to Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure requires that, the suit is liable to rejected if the same is barred by any law which should be evident on the face of it. In other words, the suit is or should appear to be barred by any law. The limitation being a question of law and facts, requires a detailed inquiry to that effect, which is possible by leading evidence by the parties concerned, in the absence of which, it is impossible to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the suit is barred by law of limitation or not. Therefore, application filed by the 1st defendant is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the application. 6. The Trial Court, considering the application and the objections, by the impugned order, dismissed the application. Hence the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 7. Sri K.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner/ 1st defendant vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. The petitioner/defendant No.1 denied the very execution of the agreement itself. But the averments made in the plaint reveals that the agreement of sale came to be executed on 02.04.2010 fixing eleven months time for execution of the sale deed. Later, on 01.11.2010 the time stipulated earlier was extended by another six months which would come to an end by the end of September 2011. Admittedly, plaintiff filed the suit 17.03.2015. Therefore, the very suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. The said aspect of the matter is considered by the Trial Court. Later, on 01.11.2010 the time stipulated earlier was extended by another six months which would come to an end by the end of September 2011. Admittedly, plaintiff filed the suit 17.03.2015. Therefore, the very suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. The said aspect of the matter is considered by the Trial Court. In view of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, reasonable time is three years to enforce the specific performance of contract. Therefore, he sought to set-aside the impugned order passed by the Trial court by allowing the writ petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon para-9 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fatehji and Company and others vs. L.M. Nagpal and others reported in AIR 2015 SC 2301 . 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only point that arises for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition is, “Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the 1st defendant under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure is just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant and perused the entire material on record carefully. 10. The first respondent/plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 02.04.2010 contending that the first defendant appointed the second defendant as his general power of attorney on 12.06.1997. The said document was registered and it is irrevocable. The second defendant executed an agreement of sale dated 02.04.2010 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-. On subsequent dates, the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration to the second defendant who in turn handed over the physical possession of the suit schedule property including the original registered sale deed dated 24.10.1970 executed in favour of the vendor of the first defendant, RTC, M.R. extract and encumbrance certificate. Thereafter, the first defendant, by paper publication dated 20.12.2014, cancelled the general power of attorney dated 12.06.1997. Therefore, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 26.01.2015 to the defendants calling upon them to execute the registered sale deed. Thereafter, the first defendant, by paper publication dated 20.12.2014, cancelled the general power of attorney dated 12.06.1997. Therefore, plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 26.01.2015 to the defendants calling upon them to execute the registered sale deed. The defendants, instead of complying with the same, issued evasive reply dated 12.02.2015, denying the averments made in the notice. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief sought for. At paragraph 15 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on 02.04.2010, when the second defendant executed the agreement of sale. Further, the cause of action arose on 26.01.2015 when the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants, and so also, on 12.02.2015. Subsequently, the cause of action arose on 28.02.2015 when the first defendant tried to trespass into the schedule property. The defendants, filed separate written statements and denied the averments made in the plaint. 11. By reading of the averments made in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 10 and 15 of the plaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner/first defendant has not made out a case, as contemplated under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, which clearly depicts that, the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the time extended to execute the registered sale deed ended in September 2011, suit is filed in the year 2015, therefore, suit is barred under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act specifically depicts that, the period of limitation for specific performance of a contract is three years and the time from which period begins to run is the date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. 13. At paragraph 7 of the plaint it is specifically stated that, after coming to know of the paper publication on 20.12.2014, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 26.01.2015 stating that since the entire sale consideration is paid and the defendant has to execute the sale deed. The same was replied by the defendant on 12.02.2015. 13. At paragraph 7 of the plaint it is specifically stated that, after coming to know of the paper publication on 20.12.2014, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 26.01.2015 stating that since the entire sale consideration is paid and the defendant has to execute the sale deed. The same was replied by the defendant on 12.02.2015. Therefore, plaintiff has pleaded at para 15 that the cause of action arose on 12.12.2015 and subsequently on 28.02.2015 when the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property in question. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is barred by law, cannot be accepted. 14. Insofar as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Fatehji and Company (supra), it was a case where the plaintiff averred in the plaint that the last and final cause of action accrued and arose to them after August, 1991 when the defendants succeeded in hiding themselves and started avoiding the plaintiffs and the cause of action being recurring and continuous one, they filed the suit on 29.04.1994. The original cause of action became available to the plaintiffs on 02.12.1973, the date fixed for the performance of the contract and thereafter the same stood extended till 01.02.1977 as requested by the defendants. Though the plaintiffs claimed that oral extension of time was given, no particulars as to when and how long, were not (sic) mentioned in the plaint. On the other hand, even after knowing the dishonest intention of the sons of the second defendant with regard to the suit property in the year 1985, the plaintiffs did not file the suit immediately. The suit having been filed in the year 1994 was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. 15. Admittedly in the present case, according to the plaint averments, the entire sale consideration was paid to the 2nd defendant on 15.09.2011 and the 2nd defendant undertook to execute the sale deed as and when demanded by the plaintiff as per the receipt dated 15.09.2011, produced along with the plaint as per Annexure-6. When the plaintiff came to know about the dishonesty of the defendant, immediately, he issued notice on 26.01.2015 to which the defendant replied on 12.02.2015. When the plaintiff came to know about the dishonesty of the defendant, immediately, he issued notice on 26.01.2015 to which the defendant replied on 12.02.2015. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action for the suit arose on 02.04.2010, when the second defendant executed the agreement of sale. Further, the cause of action arose on 26.01.2015 when the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants, and so also, on 12.02.2015. Subsequently, the cause of action arose on 28.02.2015 when the first defendant tried to trespass into the schedule property to dispossess the plaintiff from enjoying the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the suit is filed on 17.03.2015, within the time stipulated under Article 54 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the judgment relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d), in the case of Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat v. Inder Kumar and others, reported in AIR 2015 SC 3357 , at paragraph 16 and 17, has held as under: 16. After so stating, the Division Bench opined that in the facts of the said case, the suit could not be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of issue on limitation and taking evidence, for question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and on ex-facie reading of the plaint it could not be held that the suit was barred by time. 17. Coming to the case at hand we find that the allegations in the plaint are absolutely different. There is an asseveration of fraud and collusion. There is an assertion that in the earlier suit a decree came to be passed because of fraud and collusion. In such a fact situation, in our considered opinion, the High Court has fallen into error by expressing the view that the plea of resjudicata was obvious from the plaint. In fact, a finding has been recorded by the High Court accepting the plea taken in the written statement. In our view, in the obtaining factual matrix there should have been a trial with regard to all the issues framed. 17. In fact, a finding has been recorded by the High Court accepting the plea taken in the written statement. In our view, in the obtaining factual matrix there should have been a trial with regard to all the issues framed. 17. It is also relevant to note that as on the date of the alleged agreement of sale i.e., 02.04.2010 said to have been executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff, the general power of attorney was in force. The first defendant appointed the second defendant as his general power of attorney by a registered document dated 12.06.1997. The agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant and the payment of sale consideration is during the existence of the said general power of attorney. The general power of attorney came to be cancelled by the first defendant on 20.12.2014. According to the plaintiff, by that time, the transaction between the parties was over. These are all the matters which require trial. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the first defendant under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, is in accordance with law. Therefore, the point raised for consideration is answered in the affirmative. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order, exercising powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.