ORDER : 1. The present revision petition has preferred against the impugned order dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Additional District & Session Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, in Civil Suit No.34/2007 (RIICO Vs. M/s Shri Uttam Solvent Extractions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) whereby learned court below rejected the application of present petitioners/defendants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent RIICO filed an application under Sections 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 for recovery of Rs.94,01,295/- with interest till realization as aforesaid. On which notices were issued on 12.07.2007 to present petitioner/non-applicant who put his appearance on 22.03.2011. Thereafter on 03.09.2011, an application was filed to the effect that non-applicant no.2 Jethanand has expired and non-appellant nos. 1,3 and 4 also put their appearance on 03.09.2011. Vide order dated 20.05.2013, the application abated in relation to non-appellant no.2 Jethanand due to his death, as no application was filed for substitution. Thereafter, on 07.12.2013, petitioner/non-applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with 151 CPC before the court below which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.10.2014 against which this revision petition has been filed. 3. Mr. R.K. Agarwal Advocate, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner/non-applicant submits that the application submitted by respondent RIICO was in relation to non payment, which was advanced in the year 1992 and according to petitioner/non-applicant RIICO issued legal notice on 20.03.1997. Thereafter, on 10.03.1998 the possession mortgage/hypothecated property was taken by the appellant (RIICO). Accordingly, the cause-of-action for recovery of the amount arose in the year 1997 and the application was preferred on 31.05.2007, therefore, the same is barred by limitation and, therefore, it is not maintainable. Without considering this fact, learned court below wrongly rejected the application of petitioner/non-applicant submitted under Order 7 Rule 11 read with 151 CPC. He further submits that when the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was pending then before deciding the aforesaid application, petitioner/non-applicant should not be forced for filing written statement but in the case in hand learned trial court vide order dated 11.03.2014 closed the written statement while reply to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with 151 CPC was filed by non-applicant RIICO before the trial court on 15.07.2014. He submits that it is true that the issue of question of limitation is next question of fact and law which came to be decided after framing issue and regarding evidence but without considering this fact learned court below wrongly closed the right of filing of written statement of defendants. Therefore, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and in case Hon’ble Court affirms the impugned order then petitioner may be given opportunity for filing written statement which should be filed within seven days from today before the trial court. 4. Learned counsel relied on Ravindra Kumar and Ors. vs. Abinash & Ors. in civil writ petition no.2065/2012 decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 30.07.2012, Saleem Bhai & Ors. v. State of Maharastha and Ors. AIR 2003 SCC 759 , Ramesh B. Desai & Ors. vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 638 , R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu & Anr. (2016) 14 SCC 275 , and Satti Pardesi Samadhi & Pillayar Temple v. M. Sankuntala through legal representative & Ors. (2015) 5 SCC 674 . 5. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Taneja learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent RICCO supported the impugned order and submits that since counsel for the petitioner himself admits that the question of limitation is next question of law and facts, therefore, on this ground plaint cannot be rejected, therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel relied on Deepak Bhandari Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (2015) 5 SCC 518 . He further submits that so far as the filing of written statement/reply is concerned, the same was filed before the trial court on 22.03.2011 and thereafter on 03.09.2011 vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the petitioners/non-appellants and the written statement was closed on 11.03.2014, which was closed after two years and six months. Further the order dated 11.03.2014, by which the right to file written statement is not challenged in this revision petition, therefore while deciding revision petition against the impugned order by which application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected the order dated 11.03.2014 passed by trial court cannot be considered. Further the order dated 11.03.2014, by which the right to file written statement is not challenged in this revision petition, therefore while deciding revision petition against the impugned order by which application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected the order dated 11.03.2014 passed by trial court cannot be considered. He further submits that against the order by which the right to file written statement was closed, no revision petition is maintainable only writ can be filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, therefore the order dated 11.03.2014 cannot be touched while deciding this revision petition. 7. Mr. R.K. Agarwal learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that after filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the relief regarding filing written statement is a consequential relief, therefore same should be considered by this Court and after rejection of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court ought to have asked to file written statement which was not done by the court below therefore, it is the material irregularity on the part of the trial court. He submits that this Court under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC can consider this aspect in this revision petition. 8. I have considered the submissions made at bar. 9. So far as, impugned order is concerned. 10. Since the main ground in application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC petitioners/non-appellants raised the issue of limitation which is admittedly next question of fact and the same can be decided after framing all issues. 11. Further, in the matter of Deepak Bhandari Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (Supra) the suit filed for recovery of outstanding amount from appellant guarantor after adjusting sale proceeds of mortgaged/hypothecated assets of defaulting Company pro rata amongst secured debtors, the same was decreed which was contention that suit was barred by limitation, as limitation runs from issue of notice raised in this revision petition recalling loan amounts and not from sale of mortgage/hypothecated assets on which Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right to sue on contract of indemnity/hypothecated arises when contract is broken it was further held that once assets are taken possession of and sold under Section 29 of 1951 Act, mortgage/hypothecation may have come to an end but contract of indemnity does not cease being independent contract. Right to sue for recovery of balance amount on contract of indemnity arose only after mortgaged/hypothecated assets of company were sold and after ascertainment of outstanding dues. Hence, limitation period for recovery of balance amount would start only after assets of the company were sold. 12. Here in the case in hand, petitioners according to their application submits that the limitation starts from the date of notice. To grant the aforesaid judgment the limitation begins from the date when amount which is ascertained and that can take place only after adjusting from the mortgage/assets, not from the date of recalling loan amounts, therefore there is no ground of interference in the impugned order. 13. In the matter of Satti Pardesi Samadhi And Pillayar Temple Vs. M. Sankuntala (Supra) the appellant-plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration seeking that three settlement deeds executed in 1978. The core question for consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether an issue of limitation could at all have been taken up as a preliminary issue. On a plain consideration of the language employed in sub-rule (2) of Order 14 CPC it can be stated that when an issue requires an inquiry into facts, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. 14. The scheme of Section 10 of the Limitation Act indicates that certain facts are to be established to throw the lis from the sphere of the said provision so that it would come within the concept of limitation. The High Court has fallen into some error without appreciating the facts in proper perspective. That apart, the High Court took recourse to Articles 92 to 96 without appreciating the factum that is uses the words “transferred by the trustee for a valuable consideration” in asseveration of the appellant-plaintiff which is that the trustee had created three settlement deeds in favour of his two daughters and a granddaughter. The issue of consideration has not yet emerged. This settlement made by the father was properly belongs to the Trust as Trust is understood within the meaning of Section 10 of the Limitation Act has also to be gone into. Thus, unless there is determination of facts which would not protect the plaintiff under Section 10 of the Limitation Act the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Thus, unless there is determination of facts which would not protect the plaintiff under Section 10 of the Limitation Act the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The question of limitation was an issue that pertained to facts and law and hence, it is not a case which will come within the ambit and sweep of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC which would enable the court to frame a preliminary issue to adjudicate thereof which is not disputed but this court relates to framing and deciding of primarily issue. 15. In the matter of R.K. Roja Vs. U.S. Rayudu & Anr. (Supra) the first respondent herein filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant to the The first respondent herein filed an Election Petition challenging the election of the appellant to the 289 Nagiri Assembly Constituency. Appellant was declared elected on 16.05.2014. The election petition is dated 30.06.2014. On receipt of notice in the Election Petition, the appellant filed Annexure-P/4-application for rejection of the Petition, under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC by way of a counter affidavit. It appears that the court declined to consider the same on the ground that there was no formal application and hence proceeded with the trial. At that stage, appellant filed Annexure-P/5-formal application for rejection of the Election Petition on the ground that the Election Petition did not disclose any cause of action. That application as per the impugned order dated 27.04.2016 was posted along with the main petition, and thus, the appeal. The High Court has taken the view that the same “was not filed at the earliest opportunity” and that appellant was not diligent in prosecuting the application. Therefore, the court took the view that … “this application filed by the first respondent shall be decided at the time of final hearing …”. against civil appeal was filed against wherein it was held that an application under Order VII Rule 11 the Court must dispose of the application before proceeding with trial. In case of dismissal of application defendant entitled to file written statement which is not disputed. But in the case in hand petitioner challenged the impugned order by which application under Order 7 Rule 11 dismissed. While prior to the dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11. 16. In the matter of Ramesh B. Desai & Ors. Vs. In case of dismissal of application defendant entitled to file written statement which is not disputed. But in the case in hand petitioner challenged the impugned order by which application under Order 7 Rule 11 dismissed. While prior to the dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11. 16. In the matter of Ramesh B. Desai & Ors. Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors. (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the provision of Civil Procedure Code under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC held that CPC confers no jurisdiction on Court to decide a mixed question of fact and law, unless the facts are clear from the plaint itself and the mixed question of fact and law can be determined on the principle of demurrer. It was further held that where a decision on an issue of law depends upon a decision of fact, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. It was held that a plea of limitation cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts as in every case the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained, which is entirely a question of fact. A plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The question where plea arises “barred by limitation” occurring in Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC would also include the ground that it is barred by law of limitation has been recently considered by a two-Judge Bench of this Court to which one of us as an opportunity, “in the case of Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. V. Hanuman Seva Trust it was held: (SCC p.661, para 8) “8. After hearing counsel for the parties, going through the plaint, application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and the judgments of the trial court and the High court, we are of the opinion that the present suit could not be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of an issue of limitation and taking of evidence. Question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Ex facie in the present case on the reading of the plaint it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time.” 17. This principle would be equally applicable to a company petition. Question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Ex facie in the present case on the reading of the plaint it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time.” 17. This principle would be equally applicable to a company petition. Therefore, unless it becomes apparent from the reading of the company petition that the same is barred by limitation the petition cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. 18. In the matter of Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for the purposes of deciding an application under Clause (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7, Rule11, CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity including the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the Court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects. 19. In the matter of Ravindra Kumar & Ors. v. Abnish & Ors. (supra) co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the application under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India considering the fact there being cogent and genuine reason for the respondents defendants for not filing the written statement within the prescribed time limit, the trial court has rightly permitted the defendants to file the same. Dismissed the writ petition and affirmed trial court orders whereby the writ petition was taken on record. The propositions decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court giving by this Court are not disputed in this revision petition. Challenge is made only the impugned order by which application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with 151 CPC was dismissed and prior to it on 03.09.2011 petitioners/non-appellants put their appearance before the trial court and till final disposal of application i.e. 07.12.2013 they failed to file written statement as per amended provision of CPC the time limited for filing written statement is prescribed only 90 days. On the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed after two and a half years after putting appearance petitioners/non-appellant before the trial court and the issue of closing written statement has not been raised in this revision petition and the order by which order dated 11.03.2014 by which the right to file written statement was closed is not challenged in this revision petition before this Court. 20. At this juncture learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.K. Agarwal submits that this Court has wider revisional jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction to cure the defects committed by the trial court. He submits that the case laws cited by him clearly shows that after filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, an opportunity for filing written statement may be given to petitioners. Further he relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat reported in AIR 1970 SC 1 wherein it was held as under : “Now when the aid of the High Court is invoked on the revisional side it is done because it is a superior court and it can interfere for the purpose of rectifying the error of the court below. Section 115 of the CPC circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. It is only one of the modes of exercising power conferred by the Statute; basically and fundamentally it is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court which is being invoked and exercised in a wider and larger sense. We do not, therefore, consider that the principle of merger of orders of inferior Courts in those of superior Courts would be affected or would become inapplicable by making a distinction between a petition for revision and an appeal which is not disputed. But in the case in hand from the perusal of the order sheet it is observed hereinabove that after passing of about two years and six months petitioners/non-applicants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 and according to themselves that issue raised in the application is himself a question of fact and law and the same cannot be decided while deciding application under Order 7 Rule CPC. The issue of written statement it should not be decided in this revision petition.” 21. The issue of written statement it should not be decided in this revision petition.” 21. As observed above, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. 22. Record of the court below be returned. Since the issue raised for filing written statement has not been decided in this revision petition therefore, petitioners will have liberty to raise all the issue of written statement in appropriate remedy if so advised, according to law. 23. It is observed that the order passed by this Court in this case shall not effect further proceedings in the suit.