JUDGMENT B.M. Shyam Prasad,J. - The petitioner has impugned the order dated 20.07.2017 in O.S.No.58/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti (for short, 'the Civil Court'). The Civil Court by the impugned order has rejected the petitioners-defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC'). 2. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.58/2015 for specific performance of a registered sale agreement dated 27.09.2010. The respondentplaintiff has contended that he has paid a sum of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total agreed consideration of Rs.6 lakhs and he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It is agreed that the sale transaction shall be completed within a period of six months. When the respondent-plaintiff requested the petitionersdefendants, who have agreed to secure all the survey and revenue records within the agreed time, they asked for further time stating that issuance of 11E sketch for the subject property is being delayed. The respondentplaintiff has approached the petitioners-defendants multiple times including through the intervention of certain elders. When the petitioners-defendants refused to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the sale agreement dated 27.09.2010, the plaintiff issued legal notice, and because the petitioners-defendants issued an untenable reply, the present suit for specific performance is filed. 3. The petitioners-defendants contesting the suit have also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint essentially asserting that the suit is barred by limitation and as such, the plaint will have to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The Civil Court has observed that in the present suit the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, and in the light of settled law that when there is a mixed question of fact and law, the plaint cannot be rejected, has not considered the petitioners-defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC favorably. Hence, the petitioners-defendants are before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits placing reliance upon Article 54 of the Limitation Act that the agreements specifically contemplates six months from the date of the agreement for completion of sale transaction, and such six months period would end in the month of March 2011. As such, the cause of action for the suit even if any stood expired by the month of April-2014. As such, the cause of action for the suit even if any stood expired by the month of April-2014. The present suit which is filed in the month of August 2016 is obviously barred by law. As such, the Civil Court should have considered the petitioners' application for rejection of the plaint in view of these indisputable circumstances and the Civil Court's failure to so consider the application has resulted in an irregular order. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff on the other hand submits that the respondent plaintiff is very specific that he has always been ready and willing and in fact he has approached the petitioners defendants well within the time for completion of the transaction. The petitioners defendants requested for extension of time stating that 11E sketch is being delayed. The respondent plaintiff has issued legal notice only after the petitioners defendants denied their liability to execute the sale deed in performance of their obligation under the sale agreement. Therefore, the limitation will have to be reckoned from the date of the Petitioners defendants refused to complete the sale transaction. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff emphasizes that in the light of these bundle of circumstances, the plaintiff has pleaded cause of action for the suit as per paragraph 6 of the plaint. Therefore, the submission that the plaintiff has admitted that the cause of action for the suit expired in the month of February March, 2014 is a complete misreading of the plaint averments. The Civil Court has rightly considered the facts and circumstances in the light of the settled law. As such, there is no irregularity in the impugned order. 7. The learned counsel for the parties do not join debate insofar as the settled proposition of law that if question of limitation, in a given set of facts and circumstances, is a mixed question of law and fact, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The question therefore is: whether on a reading of the plaint averments alone it could be concluded that the cause of action for the suit lapsed in March-April 2014 and the suit filed in the month of August 2016 is barred by law of limitation. 8. The question therefore is: whether on a reading of the plaint averments alone it could be concluded that the cause of action for the suit lapsed in March-April 2014 and the suit filed in the month of August 2016 is barred by law of limitation. 8. The respondent plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the period of six months for completion of the transaction is contingent upon certain compliances, and the agreed period of six months is extended only because the petitioners defendants sought for extension of time. These questions, whether the agreed period of six months was contingent on certain compliances by the respondent-plaintiff and whether the petitioners defendants when requested by the respondent -plaintiff asked for more time to comply with certain agreed terms, in the considered opinion of this Court, would give rise to mixed question of fact and law which will have to be adjudicated after evidence is led in by both the parties. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or any other irregularity justifying interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of CPC. Therefore, there is no merit. It would be needless to observe that while deciding the suit on merits, the Civil Court will have to decide the suit independent of any observation made in the impugned order or by this Court while dismissing this petition. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.