ORDER : 1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Dave waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The present Revision Application is filed under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1909 (C.P.C.) emanates from the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh.8 in Regular Civil Suit No.4131 of 2015, wherein and whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of plaint has been rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3.1. The original plaintiffs i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 have instituted Regular Civil Suit No.4131 of 2015 before learned Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, against the present applicants and others. 3.2. In the aforesaid suit, it is case of the original plaintiffs that they are the heirs of deceased Dilavarkhan Pathan, who passed away on 21.05.2001. It is further the case of the original plaintiffs that without their consent, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein (Original defendant Nos.3 and 4, who happen to be mother and brother of the original plaintiffs, have sold out the property situated at Block No.69, Revenue Survey No.124 of Village:-Shankarpur to the applicants by a registered sale-deed dated 09.09.2002. 3.3. It is further the case of the original plaintiffs that at the relevant point of time they were minors and without their consent, the original defendant Nos.3 and 4 have sold out the property in question to the present applicants herein. 3.4. It is stated that after they became major also, their mother had not informed about execution of the sale-deed. It is further the case of the original plaintiffs that, however recently they came to know about the said sale transaction of 2002 and, therefore, the suit is instituted for cancellation of the registered sale-deed dated 09.09.2002. 3.5. It is submitted that along with the plaint the plaintiffs submitted a list of documents below Exh.4 and Exh. 6, which are referred to in the plaint, including the sale deed in question and birth-death certificates. 4. Learned advocate Mr. H.J. Karathiya appearing for the applicants - original defendant Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the suit is clearly barred by limitation, more particularly under Articles 59 and 60 of the Limitation Act. 6, which are referred to in the plaint, including the sale deed in question and birth-death certificates. 4. Learned advocate Mr. H.J. Karathiya appearing for the applicants - original defendant Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the suit is clearly barred by limitation, more particularly under Articles 59 and 60 of the Limitation Act. Since as per the recitals of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that the sale deed, which was executed between them alongwith the mother and their brother in the year 2002 i.e. on 09.09.2002, suggests that they were minors and 16 and 17 years old respectively and their dates of birth is 08.11.1986 and 11.11.1985 respectively. Hence, it is submitted that after attaining the majority, within a period of 3 years they were supposed to challenge the sale-deed, however, the suit has been instituted in the year 2015 and hence, the plaint was required to be rejected. 4.1. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have not prayed for partition of the suit property and in fact, the sale-deed was signed by their mother, including one brother viz. Firozkhan Dilawarkhan Pathan, who was also major at that time and both the plaintiffs, who were also signatories to the sale-deed, are now claiming that they were minors, however no proof of their dates of birth has been produced alongwith the plaint. 4.2. Learned advocate Mr. Karathiya, in support of his submission, has placed reliance on the recent decision of this Court dated 23.09.2022 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 141 of 2016 in the case of Haridas Atmaram Desani Versus Legal Heirs of Decd. Vishnudas Atmaram Desani Madhuram Vishnudas Desani & 4 Others and has submitted that in fact, the date of registration can be said to be deemed date of knowledge to the plaintiffs. Thus, it is submitted that at the most, it could have been filed after the plaintiffs attained the majority within three years not beyond that such period. 4.3 Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the plaint may be ordered to be rejected. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the original plaintiffs has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference as the same has been precisely passed. 5.1. 4.3 Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the plaint may be ordered to be rejected. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dave appearing for the original plaintiffs has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference as the same has been precisely passed. 5.1. It is submitted that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were aged 16 and 17 years on the date of Registration of the sale deed i.e. on 09.09.2002 and they were not given any amount and hence, their mother had no right to sell the property. It is thus submitted that the order rejecting the application below Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been appropriately passed and the same may not be interfered with by this Court. 5.2. Learned advocate Mr. Dave placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Saranpal Kaur Anand Vs. Praduman Singh Chandhok reported in (2022) 8 SCC 401 and has submitted that the issue is pending before the Apex Court. 6. This Court has perused the aforesaid judgment of Apex Court in case of Saranpal Kaur Anand (supra) and on a bare perusal of the aforesaid judgment would reveal that the issue, which rose before the Apex Court was with regard to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) and order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC, wherein the Trial Court, had framed the preliminary issue with regard to the limitation in filing the suit under Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC after an application seeking rejection of the plaint was filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC and instead of deciding the said application, the preliminary issue was framed. In the present case, all the issues are already framed in the suit and at this stage, two witnesses are already examined. Hence, the issue, which is under consideration before the Apex Court will not govern the facts of the present case and hence, the prayer made by the learned advocate Mr. Dave to adjourn the matter is rejected. 7. It is well settled proposition of law THAT while examining the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the averments made in the plaint and the accompanying documents are required to be examined and defence of the defendants are required to be totally ignored. 8. Dave to adjourn the matter is rejected. 7. It is well settled proposition of law THAT while examining the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the averments made in the plaint and the accompanying documents are required to be examined and defence of the defendants are required to be totally ignored. 8. This Court has perused the recitals of the plaint and the prayers made therein. The plaintiffs have specifically averred that at the time of execution of the registered sale-deed on 09.09.2002, they were minors being 16 and 17 years of age. The date of birth mentioned in the plaint, more particularly, para 4 suggests that the plaintiff No.1 was born on 08.11.1986, whereas the plaintiff No.2 was born on 11.11.1985. 9. It is further alleged that their mother and the brother have sold the said property without paying them any amount. 10. After making such averments in the prayer clause, it is prayed that the sale-deed dated 09.09.2002 may be set aside and further declaration is sought to that effect their mother and brother had no legal right to execute such sale-deed. Thus, the entire suit is premised only on sole fact i.e. the execution of sale-deed in the year 2002, when the plaintiffs were minor being 16 and 17 years of age. It is not in dispute that the sale-deed was registered and executed on 09.09.2002 and the plaintiffs are signatories to such sale-deed along with their mother i.e. defendant No.3 and their brother i.e. defendant No.4. 11. At this stage, it would be apposite to incorporate the provisions of Articles 59 and 60 of the Limitation Act, the same read as under : 59. To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract. Three years. When the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him. 60. To set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward— (a) by the ward who has attained majority; (b) by the ward's legal representative— Three years. When the ward attains majority. (i) when the ward dies within three years from the date of attaining majority. Three years. When the ward attains majority. (ii) when the ward dies before attaining majority. Three years. When the ward dies. 12. When the ward attains majority. (i) when the ward dies within three years from the date of attaining majority. Three years. When the ward attains majority. (ii) when the ward dies before attaining majority. Three years. When the ward dies. 12. The provisions of the aforesaid Articles stipulate that for setting aside transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward, the suit has to be filed within a period of three years after the ward attains majority. 13. Article 59 refers to the cancellation and setting aside of an instrument which stipulates the period of limitation of 3 years of filing the suit. 14. In the present case, the averments made in the plaint indicate that the plaintiffs were minor at that time of filing the suit being 16 and 17 years of age respectively. However, the suit has been filed after a period of 13 years from the date of registration of the sale-deed. Even if it is assumed that the plaintiffs have attained the majority after the registration of the sale-deed within a period of two years then also the suit would be barred by the limitation. 15. The prayers also do not suggests that the plaintiffs have sought any relief with regard to the partition of the suit property. 16. In view of the aforementioned fact, the Court below has fallen in error in rejecting the application filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are the purchasers of the suit property seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC. 17. The Revision Application succeeds, the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 is quashed and set aside. As a sequel the plaint is ordered to be rejected.