JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed impugning the order dated 03.05.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), vide which the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2. The facts within the precincts of the question posed before this Court are that the plaintiff-Pushtikar Bhashmeshwar Mahadev Mandir Seva Sadan Trust and its trustees, the respondents herein, filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction and also for seeking possession of certain properties claiming them to be The Trust's properties. 3. The petitioner being defendant in the suit, filed an application dated 29.10.2015, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed that the plaint deserved to be returned, being barred by law on the following three counts: (i) The suit having been filed by the unregistered trust was not maintainable; (ii) The suit was barred by limitation; and (iii) appropriate Court fee has not been paid. 4. The trial Court rejected the petitioner's aforesaid application vide its impugned order dated 03.05.2017. With respect to the question of limitation the Court below observed that it is a mixed question of facts and law; the Court is required to see the averments in the plaint only and the same does not indicate that the suit was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 5. As regards the maintainability of the suit for want of registration, the trial Court observed that since the plaintiffs' application for registration under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is pending consideration the suit cannot be rejected, as held in various judgments. The trial Court further observed that what is barred by Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act is, hearing and decision of the suit, and not the institution as such. 6. As regards deficit court fee, the trial Court held that since the suit relates to dispute between the trustees, prima facie, the court fee of Rs. 200/- paid by the plaintiffs was in accordance with law, yet the objection raised by the defendants regarding deficit court fee, can be decided only after appreciation of material and evidence. 6. As regards deficit court fee, the trial Court held that since the suit relates to dispute between the trustees, prima facie, the court fee of Rs. 200/- paid by the plaintiffs was in accordance with law, yet the objection raised by the defendants regarding deficit court fee, can be decided only after appreciation of material and evidence. Hence, instead of closing the defendant's right in this regard, the trial Court observed that an issue in relation to court fee shall be framed and decided at the appropriate stage. 7. Calling the order dated 03.05.2017, passed by the trial Court in question, Mr. Rakesh Chotia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the trial Court has seriously erred in rejecting petitioner's application dated 29.10.2015, filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. He contended that petitioner's application deserved acceptance on all counts. Firstly, making submissions regarding the requirement of registration, learned counsel contended that registration of the trust is sine quo non for the institution of a suit by a Trust and no suit filed by a trust can proceed sans its registration. Inviting attention of the Court towards Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, he submitted that there is a complete bar on maintainability of the suit by a trust in relation to trust property, if the Trust is not registered. 8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon following judgments: (I) New Apostolic Church Charitable Trust Vs. Samuel Mashi reported in 2016 (4) CDR 2001 (Raj.), (ii) Parash Ram & Ors Vs. Ram Singh & Ors reported in 2018 (1) WLN 527 (Raj.) and (iii) Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan Vs. Nand Lal & Ors reported in AIR 2017 SC 3603 . 9. With respect to the second ground that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation; he pointed out that though an FIR was lodged in relation to the disputed property in the year 1992, yet the plaintiffs have filed the suit in question in the year 2017, as such, the suit was clearly barred by law of limitation. 10. In support of his contention that appropriate court fee has not been paid, learned counsel submitted that in the para No. 16 of the plaint, the plaintiffs themselves have claimed the value of the disputed property to be Rs. 10. In support of his contention that appropriate court fee has not been paid, learned counsel submitted that in the para No. 16 of the plaint, the plaintiffs themselves have claimed the value of the disputed property to be Rs. 2 crore, hence, the court fee was required to be paid based on the market value of the property, viz. Rs. 2 crore. The court fee of Rs. 200/- paid by the plaintiffs was thus clearly insufficient, he argued. 11. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs, per contra, submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the petitioner's application and the order impugned does not call for any interference. 12. He submitted that it is a settled proposition that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and no suit can be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of limitation, without recording of evidence. He argued that whether the plaintiffs were aware of the factum of execution of will or alleged irregular transfer of the Trust property, is a question of fact to be determined on the basis of evidence of both the parties. Even the date of knowledge is a question of fact to be determined on the basis of evidence. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly repelled petitioner's contentions, argued learned counsel. 13. Advancing his arguments in relation to requirement of registration, Mr. Bhandari submitted that Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 raises a road block in the way of decision and hearing of the suit, but the same does not create any embargo upon institution of the suit per se. He submitted that indisputably the plaintiffs' application for registration was pending before the competent authority and hence, they were not precluded from instituting the suit. The moment the trust is registered, the so called lacuna in the plaint would stand cured and the suit instituted by the plaintiffs would be maintainable. If the argument of the petitioner is accepted and the suit is rejected for want of registration of the trust, it would lead to grave injustice and irretrievable loss; urged learned counsel for the respondents. 14. In support of the his argument, learned counsel relied upon a Coordinate Bench decision dated 26.09.2008, rendered in the case of Shri Parashvanath Jain Temple & Ors Vs. 14. In support of the his argument, learned counsel relied upon a Coordinate Bench decision dated 26.09.2008, rendered in the case of Shri Parashvanath Jain Temple & Ors Vs. Lrs of Prem Das and made reference of para No. 17 thereof and he pointed out that even at the stage of second appeal, this Court had taken the document of registration on record and taking cognizance of factum of the registration of the appellant trust, remanded the matter while resurrecting the suit proceedings. 15. While maintaining that appropriate court fee as payable under Section 27 of the Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 has been paid, he submitted that nevertheless this question too is a question of fact and is dependent of the evidence. He further pointed out that the Court below has kept this issue alive and permitted the defendant to support his contention by way of evidence and otherwise, as and when the issue with respect to court fee is raised, framed and decided. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. As far as questions No. (ii) & (iii) with respect to limitation and court fee are concerned, I am of the firm opinion that these are susceptible and subservient to the ocular and documentary evidence, being questions of fact and law. As such these questions cannot be decided at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. 18. It is settled proposition of law that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the trial Court is required to look at the plaint and plaint alone. Upon appraisal of the plaint, this Court neither finds the suit to be time barred nor does it find the court fee as paid by the plaintiffs to be insufficient. There may be some substance in the petitioner's contentions, but the same has to be examined on the basis of written statement, pleadings and corresponding evidence to be led by the rival parties. 19. However, as far as registration of the trust is concerned, Section 29 of the Registration Act puts an embargo on hearing and decision of the suit. There may be some substance in the petitioner's contentions, but the same has to be examined on the basis of written statement, pleadings and corresponding evidence to be led by the rival parties. 19. However, as far as registration of the trust is concerned, Section 29 of the Registration Act puts an embargo on hearing and decision of the suit. According to the averments made in the plaint itself, as the application of the plaintiffs-trust was pending consideration, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs-trust was having a registration in its favour. 20. The question of registration goes to the root of the matter and without registration in favour of the plaintiffs-trust, the suit cannot be heard and decided. 21. On the other hand, this Court finds substance in the stand of the respondents that what is prohibited by virtue of Section 29 of the Trust Act is, hearing and decision of the suit and not institution of the suit as such. 22. Hence, I am of the firm view that the suit as filed by the Trust had been rightly instituted and registered by the trial Court. However, there is an inherent inhibition in proceeding with the suit for want of registration. 23. That being the position, the question of registration becomes soul of the suit. The trial Court is thus directed to frame preliminary issue with respect to registration of the trust and decide the same in accordance with law. 24. Both the parties shall be permitted to lead their evidence relevant to such preliminary issue. 25. The revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 03.05.2017, is set aside to the extent of maintainability of the suit without registration. The trial Court shall decide the preliminary issue in accordance with law.