JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, who is the defendant no. 3 in Title (D) Suit No. 277 of 2014, is aggrieved of order dated 07.11.2017 by which his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Contention raised by the petitioner is that the plaintiff had the knowledge of the adoption-deed in the year, 1997 itself and while so, the suit is barred by the law of limitation. Another plea raised by the petitioner is that no cause of action has arisen for instituting the suit and therefore the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. 3. Title (D) Suit No. 277 of 2014 has been instituted for a decree for declaration of the plaintiff''s right, title and possession over the suit property and alternatively, if the plaintiff is found dispossessed during pendency of the suit he may be delivered possession of the suit property through the court''s process. Cancellation of auction sale dated 22.05.1993 in favour of defendant no. 1 and a declaration that the adoption-deed no. 86 of 1976 is null and void have also been prayed in the plaint. The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant no. 1 had filed M.P. Case No. 1236 of 2013 and the proforma defendant, who is the petitioner herein, has filed M.P. Case No. 503 of 2002. It is pleaded that the defendant no. 1 has no title over the suit property and that is the reason the Settlement Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer have not recognized his claim. There is a reference of police report and a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C which was initiated against defendant no. 1 vide Cr. Misc. Case No. 301 of 2007. 4. Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC if on a plain reading of the plaint averments it is found that the suit is barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected. It is well-settled that except the plaint averments the court cannot look into any other document or the defence taken by the defendant in his written statement or the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In so far as stand taken by the petitioner that no cause of action has arisen, the trial Judge has rightly noticed the plaint averment in paragraph nos. In so far as stand taken by the petitioner that no cause of action has arisen, the trial Judge has rightly noticed the plaint averment in paragraph nos. 25 and 26 wherein the plaintiff has pleaded that he came to know about the adoption-deed on 12.02.2014 in the proceeding of M.P. Case No. 193 of 2005. From the aforesaid, at this stage this also cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation; the suit has been instituted in the year 2014 itself. The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts which cannot be decided at this stage and, that too, without taking evidence in the suit. The plaint averments disclose certain facts which the defendants have tried to dispute in their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and while so, it is more so a reason, the issue of limitation cannot be decided before the parties lead their evidence in the suit. 5. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.11.2017 the writ petition is dismissed.