ORDER/JUDGMENT – Parties through their counsel. 2. The applicant before this Court, who is defendant No. 1 in civil suit filed by Mishribai has filed this revision against the order dated 14-9-2018 by which the Civil Judge, Class-I, Khategaon, District-Dewas has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. The facts of the case reveal that the non-applicant No. 1 Mishribai has filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession, injunction and mesne profit. It was stated by her that in another Civil Suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 60-A/2010, her husband was a party/defendant No. 1 and the death of her husband took place on 30-5-2012. She further stated that in spite of the fact that her husband was no more, a fraud was played upon and a judgment and decree was passed in Lok Adalat on 13-12-2014 even though her husband was a party. 4. The another important aspect of the case is that she was not a party in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2014 which was decided by Lok Adalat on 13-12-2014. In those circumstances, she filed civil suit claiming declaration of title, possession, injunction and mesne profit. 5. The present applicant before this Court, who is defendant No. 1 preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the dispute between the parties stands concluded on account of a compromise decree dated 13-12-2014, which was passed by the Lok Adalat and therefore the award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by filing a civil suit. 6. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri A. S. Garg has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Bhargavi Construction and anr. vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 4428 . His contention is that the award of Lok Adalat can only be challenged by filing a writ petition invoking Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Reliance has further been placed upon another judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and anr. vs. Jalour Singh and ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660 . It has been argued that the award of Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by filing a civil suit. 7. Reliance has further been placed upon another judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and anr. vs. Jalour Singh and ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 660 . It has been argued that the award of Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by filing a civil suit. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards section 21 of the Legal Aid Services Authority Act, 1987 and the same reads as under : – (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the Court free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870). – 1[(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the Court-free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870).]” (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/Mishribai has stated categorically that Mishribai was not a party to the civil suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 12-A/2014 which was decided by Lok Adalat on 13-12-2014 on account of a compromise and therefore, the judgment and decree dated 13-12-2014 is not binding upon Mishribai, the respondent No. 1. 9. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/Mishribai has stated categorically that Mishribai was not a party to the civil suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 12-A/2014 which was decided by Lok Adalat on 13-12-2014 on account of a compromise and therefore, the judgment and decree dated 13-12-2014 is not binding upon Mishribai, the respondent No. 1. 9. He has also stated that Mishribai’s husband-Mojiram, who was defendant No. 1 in the Civil Suit No. 12-A/2014 expired on 30-5-2012 and, therefore, the award was not passed with the consent of Mojiram/defendant No. 1 therein nor with the consent of Mishribai who was the wife of Mojiram and therefore, the award is certainly not at all binding upon her and she has rightly preferred a civil suit for declaration of title, possession, injunction and mesne profit. The trial Court has dismissed the application. 10. This Court has carefully gone through the entire record of the case. Undisputedly, the trial Court has dismissed the application preferred by the present applicant, who is defendant No. 1 vide order dated 14-9-2018. In the present case in the civil suit there is an issue involved in respect of limitation and as the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact the same cannot be decided summarily on application preferred under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. The most important aspect of the case is that Mishribai was not a party to the judgment and decree dated 13-12-2014 passed by Lok Adalat on account of a compromise and therefore, once she was not a party, the judgment and decree is certainly not at all binding upon. Her husband was also not alive and the factum of death of her husband has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant before this Court. The husband expired on 30-5-2012 and this Court is really not able to digest as to how the husband, who is no more, could have entered into a compromise in respect of Civil Suit No. 12-A/2014. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, for deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only plaint averments are to be looked into. The pleas taken by the defendant in written statement are not at all relevant. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, for deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only plaint averments are to be looked into. The pleas taken by the defendant in written statement are not at all relevant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhau Ram vs. Janak Singh, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 701 in paragraph 15 held as under : – “15. The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that while considering an application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, the Court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be irrelevant [vide C. Natrajan vs. Ashim Bai, (2007) 14 SCC 183 , Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, (2007) 10 SCC 59 , Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Hede and Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614 , Mayar (H. K) Ltd. vs. Vessel M. V Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100 , Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Asstt. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137 and Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 ]. The above view has been once again reiterated in the recent decision of this Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 .” 13. In light of the aforesaid judgment, the learned Judge of the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application preferred Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. Learned counsel has stated before this Court that the suit was well within limitation as it was a suit for declaration of title and possession based on title i.e. both for relief of declaration and for relief of possession. The limitation is applicable under Article 65 not under Article 58, meaning thereby that the limitation is of 12 years and the suit could not have been dismissed as prayed in the application preferred under Order 7, Rule 11. He has placed reliance upon another judgment delivered in the case of Sopan Rao and anr. vs. Syed Mehmood and others, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 76 . 15. He has placed reliance upon another judgment delivered in the case of Sopan Rao and anr. vs. Syed Mehmood and others, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 76 . 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the trial Court is yet to decide whether the suit was within limitation or not by framing an issue during the trial, this Court is not commenting upon the issue of limitation at all. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application preferred under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree in which the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was not a party is not binding upon her at all. The so called compromise has taken place before the Lok Adalat on 13-12-2014 meaning thereby much after the death of her husband who was defendant No. 1 as the death has taken place on 30-5-2012 and therefore, the respondent No. 1 was not at all required to file a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India as argued by the learned counsel. 16. Resultantly, no case to interfere is made out in the matter. The civil revision is dismissed accordingly.