JUDGMENT : VANDANA KASREKAR, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present civil revision challenging the order dated 22.11.2018, passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 109-A/2017, whereby rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 2. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction, partition, possession and for setting aside the sale deed. As per plaint allegation, a suit land was recorded in the name of Monai Church of Canada Missionary, Dhar India and Smt. E.P. Das Wd/o Dr. Ratnagar Peeter Das being the Director thereof, was in possession and management of the said Missionary. The plaintiffs have further stated that they are the daughters of Late Ratnagar Das and there was one son Sudhir Das (Petitioner) also. It was further alleged that the mother of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 died on 12.03.2012 and before her death she was suffering from serious diseases. It was further stated that the petitioner sold the suit land to the other respondents by registered sale-deed dated 17.06.2009 through the attorney of Smt. E.P. Das. 3. After receiving the summons, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and further that the suit has not been properly valued. 4. The respondents have filed their reply denying the allegations made in the application. The Court below, after hearing both the parties has dismissed the application vide order dated 22.11.2018 being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argues that the order passed by the Court below is illegal and contrary to law. He further submits that the Court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. He further submits that on the basis of plaint allegations itself, the suit is bared by limitation. He submits that the registered sale-deed has been executed on 17.06.2009 whereas, the present suit has been filed in the Year 2017 i.e. after a period of more than 8 years while the limitation for challenging the registered sale-deed is 3 years. He further submits that the respondent nos. He submits that the registered sale-deed has been executed on 17.06.2009 whereas, the present suit has been filed in the Year 2017 i.e. after a period of more than 8 years while the limitation for challenging the registered sale-deed is 3 years. He further submits that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed a civil suit for cancellation of the registered sale-deed. However, the suit land is already a diverted land and constructions have already been raised on the said land and, therefore, the market value of the same is more than crores and the trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. As the land is already a diverted land, therefore, valuing the suit on the basis of land revenue, is not maintainable. He further submits that the said civil suit has been filed against the dead person, which is nullity. He further submits that earlier also a suit has been filed regarding the said suit property for declaration of title of the suit land. The said suit was dismissed on 20.12.2014 and against the said judgment and decree, a First Appeal No. 177/2005 was filed before this Court which was also dismissed on 18.10.2005 and, therefore, on the basis of this judgment also the present suit is not maintainable. He submits that the trial Court has not at all considered all these grounds and rejected the application of the petitioner only on the ground that the grounds raised in the application is mixed question of law and facts and can be decided only after leading evidence of both the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments passed in the case of Karim Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2009) ILR (M.P.) 3167, Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2009 (4) MPLJ 315 , Laxminarayan vs. Daryaobai, 1997 (1) MPWN 72 , Kapooribai vs. Bhagwansingh, 2001 (1) MPWN 65 and Ashok Transport Agency vs. Awadhesh Kumar and Another, 1998 AIR SCW 4042. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order passed by the Court below and submits that the grounds which have been raised by the petitioner in the application that can be decided only after leading evidence by both the parties. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order passed by the Court below and submits that the grounds which have been raised by the petitioner in the application that can be decided only after leading evidence by both the parties. Thus, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner. 8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 9. In the present case, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, partition, possession and for setting aside the sale-deed. After getting summons of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejecting the plaint on the following grounds:- (i) That the suit is barred by limitation. (ii) The trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (iii) The suit is neither properly valued nor proper Court fee has been paid and in the previous litigation, the title of the suit property has already been decided. 10. The Court below, after hearing both the parties has rejected the said application on the ground that the grounds raised by the petitioner in the application are mixed question of law and facts and so far as the ground no. (i) regarding limitation is concerned, admittedly, plaintiffs in their plaint has stated that the sale-deed has been executed on 17.06.2009 and the suit has been filed in Year 2017 i.e. after more than 8 years while limitation for challenging the registered sale-deed is 3 years. Thus, on the basis of pleadings made by the petitioner in the plaint itself the suit is barred by limitation. 11. That, this Court in Para 8 and 10 of the judgment in the case of Neelam Kumar Bachani vs. Bhishamlal, 2013 (4) MPLJ 117 , has held as under:- “8. This leads no doubt that specific limitation prescribed under the Schedule of the Limitation Act are to be specifically followed. As has been referred to hereinabove, limitation for filing of the suit based on payment of money by cheque, the period of limitation is three years from the date when the cheque is paid. Admittedly, in the present case, the said date was 15.5.2009, as set forth in the plaint itself. As has been referred to hereinabove, limitation for filing of the suit based on payment of money by cheque, the period of limitation is three years from the date when the cheque is paid. Admittedly, in the present case, the said date was 15.5.2009, as set forth in the plaint itself. As prescribed in section 35 of the Limitation Act, the period of repayment of the loan amount on the basis of the bill of exchange or promissory note was to be specifically written. A restrain was to be put postponing the right to sue from the date of payment of the aforesaid bill of exchange or cheque or promissory note as the case may be. If such a restrain is put, then from the date the right to sue accrued, the limitation would be three years for filing of the suit. A complete reading of the plaint nowhere indicates that there was any such restrain put by the applicants. Nothing has been stated whether the parties executed a separate agreement with respect to the said loan transaction for which the amount was paid by cheque on 15.5.2009, putting restrain to filing of a suit within three years from the said date of transaction. Merely because a notice was issued and a reply was submitted and payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- was admitted by the applicants, again the cause of action for filing of the suit for recovery of the alleged loan amount would start from 15.5.2009. From the averments made in the plaint, it is clear that the suit ought to have been filed by 14.5.2012. The period of three years limitation had expired on this day. The suit was not filed on the said date. On the other hand, the suit was said to be filed on 23.8.2012 when it was presented in the Court though the plaint was dated 22.6.2012. If these facts are taken together, only on the basis of pleadings in the plaint, it is apparently clear that the suit filed by the non-applicant was barred by limitation. No evidence was required to be recorded as these facts have emerged only from the plaint. Any oral evidence would not have changed the accrual of the cause of action to the non-applicant as in terms of the law made in the Limitation Act, the postponement of the right to sue should be in writing. No evidence was required to be recorded as these facts have emerged only from the plaint. Any oral evidence would not have changed the accrual of the cause of action to the non-applicant as in terms of the law made in the Limitation Act, the postponement of the right to sue should be in writing. If this was not, then again it was not necessary to prove anything by adducing evidence. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Mahton vs. Kamla Prasad, AIR 1951 SC 477 , has categorically dealt with an acknowledgment and an admission to that effect made in the written statement. Even if the acknowledgment made in the reply to the notice sent by the applicants is taken into consideration, it will not mean that the same was in fact an acknowledgment of the fact that right to sue on the strength of the cheque given in favour of the applicants, was enlarged by the applicants. If that is not there, the limitation would start only from the date of issuance and encashment of the cheque for the purposes of filing of the suit. In such a situation again the suit was filed beyond the limitation and this aspect is not disputed by the non-applicant even before this Court while making his submission. This being so, for proving such facts which were specifically stated in the plaint no evidence was required. It was to be seen by the Court below that the suit filed by the non-applicant would be barred by limitation and since there is no provision to enlarge limitation for filing of such suit and no such power is vested in the Court, the suit of the non-applicant was liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. Having failed to appreciate such legal position, the Court below erred in exercising the jurisdiction vested in it in appropriate manner and in rejecting the application of the applicants under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.” 12. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director (supra) has held that a registered document is a notice to all world, suit to set aside registered document is to be filed within 3 years. 13. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director (supra) has held that a registered document is a notice to all world, suit to set aside registered document is to be filed within 3 years. 13. In view of the aforesaid judgments, I am of the view that the suit is barred by limitation. 14. So far as the ground regarding proper valuation is concerned, the petitioner has challenged the registered sale-deed dated 17.06.2009, however, proper Court fee has not been paid by the petitioner on the plaint. As per judgment passed by this Court in the case of Laxminarayan (supra), in a suit for cancellation of sale-deed, suit should be valued at the sale consideration of the sale -deed and ad-valorum Court fees is payable. 15. Similarly, in the case of Kapooribai (supra), this Court has held that the valuation of the land known and shown, the suit has to be valued and Court fees has to be paid accordingly and not at 20 times of the land revenue. 16. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid judgments, passed by this Court, the suit which is filed by the respondents, was not properly valued and the Court fees was not paid. 17. The third ground is regarding that, in the earlier litigation between the parties, the title of the suit has already been decided and, therefore, the present suit is barred by principles of res-judicata. It is further observed that the present suit has been filed against the dead person which is nullity as per Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment, passed in the case of Ashok Transport Agency (supra). 18. Thus, in the light of the above, the trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law, by rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. That, the Apex Court in Para 22 and 24 of the case of Karim Bhai (supra) has held as under:- (22) UNDER Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a plaint shall be rejected on the ground mentioned in the Rule, but the instances as given cannot be regarded as exhaustive of all the cases, in which the Court can reject the plaint or is limiting the inherent powers of the Court in respect thereof. The provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC are procedural and they are enacted with an aim and object to prevent vexatious and frivolous litigation. The Court is also required to see that the vexatious and frivolous litigation should not be allowed to proceed so as to kill the time of the court for nothing. (24) I have gone through the reasonings assigned by the learned Appellate Court dismissing the appeal and I find those reasonings to be cogent. The decision of klockner (Supra) placed reliance by the learned counsel for the appellants speaks that the powers under Order VII Rule 11 (a), CPC should not be exercised only on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action. According to me, the said decision is not applicable because taking the cumulative effect, apart from the reasonings, which have been assigned by the learned First Appellate Court and by this Court hereinabove, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. Mere writing that the plaintiff is having cause of action would in itself is not sufficient to hold that the plaintiff has disclosed the cause of action. If all the circumstances are taken into cumulative effect, I am of the view that plaint does not disclose any cause of action. 19. Thus, as per the aforesaid judgment, the order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is not exhaustive and is merely illustrative and a suit if not maintainable, plaint can be rejected on other grounds also. 20. In view of the aforesaid, the suit filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 is clearly barred by law and allowing its continuance would be gross misuse of process of law, hence, the plaint deserves to be rejected and consequently, the suit deserves to be dismissed. 21. Resultantly, the present civil revision stands allowed. The application preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stands allowed and the plaint is rejected. No order as to costs.