JUDGMENT : MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the appellants. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate appears for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10. 2. The appellants have prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2016, by which Civil Suit No. 10/2015 was rejected, as being barred by limitation, as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. 3. The appellants’ case is that the appellants are owners of lands covered by Periodic Pattas. The respondent Nos. 9 and 10 along with one Lalnunthari had approached the appellants, with a proposal that they would sell the appellants’ lands and that the appellants would get the amount claimed by them for their lands. Any amount, over and above the amount claimed by the appellants, would then be the money receivable by the respondent Nos. 9, 10 and Lalnunthari. Accordingly, agreements to sell were executed between the appellants and the private respondents and Lalnunthari on 17.08.2007 and 20.08.2007. The appellants were also made to execute Power-of-Attorneys on 07.07.2008, appointing and authorizing the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 to act on their behalf for the purpose of selling the lands of the appellants. The appellants were given the money claimed by them for their lands in the year 2009 by the private respondents. 4. The appellants’ further case is that they came to learn in the year 2013 that the lands that were to be sold by the respondent Nos. 9, 10 and Lalnunthari had been acquired by the BSF vide Award No. 1/2008, which was pronounced on 04.08.2008 by the District Collector, Lunglei. They also came to learn that the Awarded amount was Rs. 12,24,56,083/- for acquiring the lands of the appellants, out of which the appellants were given only Rs. 1.10 Crores by the private respondents. 5. The appellants’ counsel submits that as the respondent Nos. 9, 10 and Lalnunthari had played a fraud upon the appellants, the appellants filed Civil Suit No. 10/2015 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei, for recovery of the balance amount of the compensation amount paid for acquiring the lands of the appellants. 5. The appellants’ counsel submits that as the respondent Nos. 9, 10 and Lalnunthari had played a fraud upon the appellants, the appellants filed Civil Suit No. 10/2015 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei, for recovery of the balance amount of the compensation amount paid for acquiring the lands of the appellants. However, the learned Trial Court rejected Civil Suit No. 10/2015, on the ground that the suit was time barred, as the time period of 3 (three) years had expired from the date of receiving money by the appellants from the respondent Nos. 9, 10 and Lalnunthari. Accordingly, the suit was rejected as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, in view of Article 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 6. The appellants’ counsel submits that the said Lalnunthari was also made a party in Civil Suit No. 10/2015 as defendant No. 11. However, Lalnunthari expired during the proceedings of the Civil Suit and as such, she is not a party to the present proceedings. 7. The appellants’ counsel also submits that a reference application was filed against Award No. 1/2008 by the private respondents which was registered as L.A Case No. 3/2009. L.A Case No. 3/2009 was disposed of vide order dated 04.12.2009. The order dated 04.12.2009 was challenged by the Union of India in RFA No. 9/2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.03.2011, by modifying the interest payable on the compensation amount from 12% to 9%. 8. The appellants’ counsel submits that rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC has to be done only on the basis of the contents of the plaint, i.e., if the averments made in the plaint shows that the plaint is barred by any law. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others, (2021) 9 SCC 99 and Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. vs. Hanuman Seva Trust and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 658 . 9. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 submits that there is no case of fraud made out and that the appellants have been paid the amount claimed by them for their lands. 9. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 submits that there is no case of fraud made out and that the appellants have been paid the amount claimed by them for their lands. He also submits that the lands of the appellants were Periodic Pattas, which were subsequently made into Land Settlement Certificates by the respondent Nos. 9 and 10. He submits that the question of fraud has now been brought up by the appellants as an afterthought, though there was no case of fraud made out. He also submits that the appellants knew about the alleged fraud only on 2013 is not correct, as the acquisition of the appellants’ lands had been made in the year 2008. The appellants having received their share of money in the year 2009, they were well aware that there was no fraud being played by the defendant Nos. 9 and 10 upon the appellants. He also submits that the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint as timebarred. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. In the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala (Supra), the Apex Court has held that Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. It thus held that in order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is only the statements in the plaint which will have to be considered and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement in the case. 12. In the case of Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. (Supra), the Apex Court has held that a suit cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC without proper pleadings, framing of an issue of limitation and taking of evidence. 13. I have perused the order sheet of the learned Trial Court. No issues have been framed by the learned Trial Court before rejecting the plaint, vide the impugned order. The learned Trial Court order dated 31.05.2016 has fixed 01.06.2016 for pre-hearing/framing of issues. The order dated 01.06.2016 has fixed 03.06.2016 for pre-hearing/framing of issues. The learned Trial Court order dated 03.06.2016 states as follows: “Learned counsels for both parties appearing. No issues have been framed by the learned Trial Court before rejecting the plaint, vide the impugned order. The learned Trial Court order dated 31.05.2016 has fixed 01.06.2016 for pre-hearing/framing of issues. The order dated 01.06.2016 has fixed 03.06.2016 for pre-hearing/framing of issues. The learned Trial Court order dated 03.06.2016 states as follows: “Learned counsels for both parties appearing. Hearing of the suit in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is conducted. Rejection order is passed in a separate sheet.” 14. A perusal of the above orders clearly shows that the learned Trial Court has not framed any issue with regard to limitation, prior to rejecting the appellants’ suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. 15. In view of the fact that the Apex Court has held that issues should be framed prior to a Court taking a decision under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 03.06.2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 10/2015 is not sustainable in law. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. 16. The case is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for further proceedings after framing of issues, as the records show that pleadings are complete. 17. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 18. Send back the LCR.