JUDGMENT : Rohit Arya, J. 1. This civil revision petition under section 115 CPC by defendants No. 1 & 2 is directed against the order dated 04/01/2021 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-II Jaora, District Ratlam, dismissing an application filed under Order 7 rule 11 CPC in RCS A/000000037/2020. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit on 07/03/2020 seeking declaration that (i) the suit land described in the plaint is of their ownership, (ii) further declaration that the sale deeds dated 01/06/1972, 26/03/1983 & 28/03/1983 be declared as null and void (iii) to deliver possession of 24 bighas of land out of 32 bighas of the suit land and (iv) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction or alienating the suit land. 3. It is averred in the plaint that 32 bighas of land was purchased by one Abdulla Khan in the name of his daughters, namely; Smt. Munavar Dulhan and Smt. Chanda Be and in the revenue record their names have been recorded. Since the land was purchased by Abdulla Khan, therefore, his son Abdul Karim was having half share according to muslim law after death of Abdullah Khan. The plaintiffs are legal representatives of Abdul Karim. 4. The defendants in their application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC contended that the plaintiff has not filed the original sale deed of suit land purchased by late Abdulla Khan, therefore, the claim for half share in favour of predecessor of the plaintiffs, i.e., Abdul Karim is not maintainable, as the land stands mutated in the names of abovesaid two daughters of late Abdulla Khan, as such they are owners. Besides, the declaration sought for that the sale deeds dated 01/06/1972, 26/03/1983 and 28/03/1983 as null and void is palpably barred by time. 5. The trial Court while rejecting the objection of not filing the original sale deed in favour of late Abdulla Khan has concluded that there is specific averment made in the plaint regarding purchase of land by Abdulla Khan, therefore, his son, Abdul Karim was entitled for half share after death of Abdulla Khan. The plaintiffs being legal representatives of late Abdul Karim are entitled for half share. Hence, mere non-filing of the original sale deed in favour of Abdulla Khan shall not disentitle the plaintiffs to prove their case as pleaded. 6. The plaintiffs being legal representatives of late Abdul Karim are entitled for half share. Hence, mere non-filing of the original sale deed in favour of Abdulla Khan shall not disentitle the plaintiffs to prove their case as pleaded. 6. Another objection that the suit is barred by time, the trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs have specifically averred (paragraph 8 of the plaint) that they acquired knowledge of the instant sale deeds only after having read a public notice on 28/01/2019 issued by defendants No. 1 to 4 in Hindi daily news paper, Dainik Bhaskar. Thereafter, after collection of all relevant documents, the suit has been filed. In view of specific pleading on the question of limitation, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is settled law that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and can only be addressed after parties lead evidence. 7. Besides, the trial Court has also rejected the objection against valuation and court fee. The trial Court has concluded that the there is a specific plea in the plaint that the plaintiffs are not party to the alleged sale deeds and they did not have knowledge or consent for the same. Hence, the fixed court fees has been affixed at the rate of twenty times of the land revenue of the suit land has been paid in terms of section 7(v) and its proviso (2) and (3) of the Court Fees Act. The contention of the defendants that ad valorem court fee should have been paid upon market value of the sale deeds, the trial Court has concluded that the question of valuation and court fee in the obtaining facts and circumstances are also mixed question of law and fact, therefore, the same can be addressed only after the parties lead evidence. 8. Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel criticizing the impugned order tried to persuade this Court that the trial Court has committed jurisdictional error while rejecting the application as after long lapse of time, the sale deeds are sought to be declared as null and void. 9. Per contra, Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the contesting respondents supports the impugned order. 10. Heard. 11. This Court has carefully perused the averments made in the plaint, particularly; paragraphs 7 and 8 of the plaint. 9. Per contra, Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the contesting respondents supports the impugned order. 10. Heard. 11. This Court has carefully perused the averments made in the plaint, particularly; paragraphs 7 and 8 of the plaint. The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs through their predecessor, Abdul Karim have half share over the suit land. The plaintiffs have acquired the knowledge only on 28/01/2019 when a public notice was published by defendants No. 1 to 4 styling themselves as owners of the suit land in Hindi daily news paper, Dainik Bhaskar. Accordingly, the suit has been filed. 12. It is settled law that only plaint averments are required to be seen while deciding the application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC. It is also settled law that the question of limitation in the obtaining facts and circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact, therefore, the same can be addressed by the trial Court only after parties led evidence [Ahilya Vedaant Education Welfare Society and another Vs. K. Vedaant Education Society and another, 2018(3) MPLJ 243 (paragraphs 16 and 17) & P.V.B. Gurj Raj Reddy represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy and another Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and others, (2015) 8 SCC 331 ] referred to. 13. The law laid down in the judgments relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, viz., T. Arvivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 , Karim Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra, ILR (2009) MP 3167, Bhagirath Prasad Singh Vs. Ram Narayan Rai & Another, AIR 2010 Patna 189, Shankar Vs. Radha Bai, 2015(1) MPLJ 385 , Neelam Kumar Vs. Bhishamlal, 2013(4) MKPLJ 117, Jamila Begum (D) Through L.Rs., Vs. Shami Mohd. (D) through L.Rs., and another, 2019(3) MPLJ 406(SC), Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by L.Rs., 2019(3) JLJ 112 (SC), Sudhirdas Vs. United Church of D Canada India, Dhar Beneficiary and others, AIR 2019 MP 165 , Chinghtop Bhutia Vs. Ran Bahadur Chettri and others, AIR 2019 Sikkim 28, Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Limited through Director Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2009(4) MPLJ 315 , Anand Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and others, 2012(3) MPLJ 129 and Mohd. Shakeel Vs. Husna Bank and others, 2017(2) MPLJ 167 is beyond cavil of doubt but the same are distinguishable on facts of the instant case and are of no assistance to the petitioners. 14. State of Haryana and another, 2009(4) MPLJ 315 , Anand Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and others, 2012(3) MPLJ 129 and Mohd. Shakeel Vs. Husna Bank and others, 2017(2) MPLJ 167 is beyond cavil of doubt but the same are distinguishable on facts of the instant case and are of no assistance to the petitioners. 14. In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has applied correct principle of law while rejecting the application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners,. Hence, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference exercising the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 15. Before parting with the case, it is considered apposite to observe that the defendants are always free to take all pleas available to them on facts and law in the written statement. 16. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 17. Civil Revision petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost.