ORDER 1. The petitioners by way of this civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seek setting aside of the order dated 19.6.2019 (AnnexureA/1) passed by learned 12th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in RCSA No.8797/2018, rejecting an application under Order 7 rule 11 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioners herein as the defendants to the said suit seeking rejection of the suit was declined with it having been observed that at this stage it cannot be held that the suit does not have sufficient cause of action. 2. At the outset, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts of the case. Original plaintiff Vijay Kumar Nagpal / respondent No.1 herein, had filed a civil suit bearing. RCSA No. 8797/2018 before the learned trial Court praying for declaration and permanent injunction over the property of Nagpal Timber (herein after referred to as ‘the firm’) and also for restraining the defendants / petitioners herein from alienating the same, on the ground that his father had invested the entire capital for establishing the firm and as soon as he attained the age of majority he was inducted as a partner in the firm. That over the years the firm grew and purchased various properties, therefore, he being a partner in the firm is entitled to 1/4th share in the various properties purchased by the firm. It has also been averred in the suit that the defendant No.1 – petitioner herein in connivance with the revenue authorities, illegally got whole of the suit property mutated in his name and in the name of his wife. The suit property was purchased from the income of the family firm in which the plaintiff was also a partner. Now, the petitioner is trying to sell off the said property. 3. After notice being served, the petitioners appeared before the trial Court and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that insufficient Court fee has been paid as he was required to pay court fee on the basis of the valuation of relief of declaration and the suit is also barred by limitation. The petitioners and the respondents both have been heard qua the application. However, the learned trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application. Hence, the petitioners before this Court. 4. The petitioners and the respondents both have been heard qua the application. However, the learned trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application. Hence, the petitioners before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants argued that the impugned order passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind and based on presumption. The trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction over the property of the firm after lapse of more than 42 years. Thus, the suit is barred by limitation. Further on perusal of the plaint it does not clearly appear that when the cause of action arose. Learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiff had clear knowledge regarding working of the firm and also regarding dissolution of partnership firm and the plaintiff had not taken any objections regarding the working / dissolution of the firm at any point of time before filing of the present suit but conveniently choose not to take any action for 42 years. On these grounds, learned counsel has prayed that the civil revision be allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 19.6.2019. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No1. / plaintiff refuting the aforesaid contentions, argued in support of the order passed by the trial court. Further averred that the cause of action arose when the plaintiff came to know that the petitioner No.1 is trying to alienate the suit property and has also got the whole property mutated in his name and when respondent no.1 claimed his share in March, 2018 was out-rightly denied. It is well settled in law that at the time of consideration of an application only and only the plaint averments are to be looked into. Whether a civil suit discloses a cause of action or not in the light of the disputed facts raised by the defendants can be ascertained only by framing an issue in that regarding and leading evidence thereon. On these grounds learned counsel has prayed that the revision petition being sans merit be dismissed. 6. Whether a civil suit discloses a cause of action or not in the light of the disputed facts raised by the defendants can be ascertained only by framing an issue in that regarding and leading evidence thereon. On these grounds learned counsel has prayed that the revision petition being sans merit be dismissed. 6. I have considered the entire gamut of the matter and canvassed the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record and considered in depth the impugned order passed by the trial Court. On plain reading of the plaint it is found that the suit filed by the plaintiff does not clearly demonstrate when the cause of action arose. The court below has wrongly appreciated the fact that the cause of action arose in March, 2018 when the petitioners refused to give him his share of the property whereas the plaintiff was introduced as partner in the year 1972 and that he continued to be a partner of the firm till 1976 and he was duly retired and that firm has been running as sole proprietorship since 1982. The plaintiff had clear knowledge regarding the working of the firm and also regarding the dissolution of partnership firm but the plaintiff had not taken any objections regarding the working / dissolution of the firm at any point of time before filing of the present suit but had not taken any action for 42 years. Moreover, the plaintiff only worked as partner of the said firm for a very short period of time i.e. from 1972-1976 where after he was duly retired from the firm. The petitioners reconstituted the firm in the year 1976 and Smt. Prakashvanti Nagpal i.e. mother of the petitioners and respondent was inducted as partner and the said firm continued till the year 1982 where-after the partnership firm was dissolved by dissolution deed dated 12.1.1983 which came into effect from 31.12.1982 and the firm was converted into sole proprietorship. Thus, it is axiomatic that cause of action arose in 1976 and the suit should have been filed within three years from 1976 and no doubt that the present suit is hopelessly time barred. 7. Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC reads as follows: “11. Thus, it is axiomatic that cause of action arose in 1976 and the suit should have been filed within three years from 1976 and no doubt that the present suit is hopelessly time barred. 7. Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC reads as follows: “11. Rejection of plaint.— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases :— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; [(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;] [(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:] [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.]” (Emphasis supplied) 8. From the aforesaid it is clear that the learned Court below while deciding the application of the petitioners has not considered dicta laid down by the catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts wherein they have categorically held that the courts should exercise their powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC if plain reading of the plaint does not reveal when the cause of action arose. 9. 9. Sequel to the aforesaid, this civil revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.6.2019 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned trial Court is set aside; meaning thereby, application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is allowed and in the result thereof, the civil suit bearing RCSA No.8797/2018 filed by the plaintiff Vijay Kumar Nagpal is hereby rejected. Interim order dated 9.7.2019 stands vacated. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court.