ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This civil revision petition is filed invoking the provisions of Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the orders dated 25.06.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge at Kamareddy in I.A.No.33 of 2024 in O.S.No.13 of 2023 where under the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri A.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Amrutha Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mentioned in the memorandum of grounds of revision that respondent Nos.3 to 16 are not necessary parties in the revision petition. 3. The revision petitioner herein is defendant No.1 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are plaintiffs, respondent Nos.3 to 16 are defendant Nos.2 to 15 in O.S.No.13 of 2023. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.13 of 2023 before the trial Court. 4. Brief facts of the case : 4.1. Plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.13 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Kamareddy, seeking declaration that they are absolute owners, title holders and possessors of the suit schedule property i.e. land to an extent of Ac.1.18 guntas in Sy.No.1058 situated at Lingampet Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District and recovery of possession of the said property from defendant Nos.1 to 7; cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing document No.1095 of 2022 dated 17.05.2022; sought perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 7 from alienating, mortgaging or change of the suit schedule property and for rectification of the entries in the record of rights in Form No.1-B of ROR and pahanies/adangals etc. by removing the illegal entry and by inserting the name of the plaintiffs. In the said suit, defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.33 of 2024 under order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) to reject the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action mentioned in the plaint and the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court dismissed the said application. Thus, the defendant No.1 filed the present revision petition. 5. The trial Court dismissed the said application. Thus, the defendant No.1 filed the present revision petition. 5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant No.1: 5.1 Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiffs are not having any right or interest over the suit schedule property and they never in possession of the same. The plaintiffs have not mentioned when their names were removed from the revenue records and when the names of the defendants were entered. According to the averments of the plaint, they were not in possession of the suit schedule property since long time. Hence the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. 5.2 He further submitted that the plaintiffs have not in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time even assuming that taking into consideration of the averments of the plaint, the cause of action arose for filing the suit for recovery of possession when they actually dispossessed. Plaintiffs have not mentioned the actual cause of action in the plaint and they mentioned that the cause of action arose on 17.05.2022 only for the purpose of filing the suit. The trial Court without properly considering the contentions raised by defendant No.1, dismissed the application. 6. Submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiffs: 6.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs have mentioned the cause of action in the plaint and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is within the stipulated time. The trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1. Analysis: 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.13 of 2023 seeking declaration that they are absolute owners, title holders and possessors of the suit schedule property; recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 to 7; cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing document No.1095 of 2022 dated 17.05.2022; sought perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 7 from alienating, mortgaging or changing the suit schedule property and for rectification of the entries in the record of rights in Form No.1-B of ROR and pahanies/adangals etc. by removing the illegal entry and by inserting the name of the plaintiffs. 8. by removing the illegal entry and by inserting the name of the plaintiffs. 8. It further reveals from the record that, in para No.11 of the plaint, plaintiffs specifically pleaded that the cause of action which arose on 17.05.2022 for filing the suit, when the defendant No.1 along with his father Taduri Bheemagoud illegally executed sale deed bearing document No.1095 of 2022 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 and husband of defendant No.7 and defendant No.2 entered into the suit schedule property on 10.05.2023 illegally. In para No.12 of the plaint, it was also averred that the suit was within the limitation as per the provisions of Articles 58, 64, 59 and 113 of Indian Limitation Act. 9. It is settled proposition of law that in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has to look into the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint alone. At that stage, the Court cannot look into the written statement or the documents filed along with the written statement. 10. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184 and Mayar (H.T.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that though in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., the Court has to look into the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint alone. The Court cannot at that stage look into the written statement or the documents filed along with the written statement. 11. In Mustigulla @ Namaswamy Hemanth Kumar v. Abhaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and others , 2016 (6) ALD 598 (DB) the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held that rejection of plaint on the ground of res judicata, cause of action, under valuation, limitation have to be decided on trial but the same cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint, especially when the parameters of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. are not satisfied. 12. It is pertinent to mention that defendant No.1 filed application for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation. 12. It is pertinent to mention that defendant No.1 filed application for rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation. It is already stated supra, that the plaintiffs have mentioned the cause of action in para No.11 and limitation in para No.12 of the plaint. Basing upon the cause of action in the plaint, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought in the suit and whether the suit is within the stipulated period of limitation, are mixed question of facts and law and the same have to be decided on trial but the same cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint, especially the burden lies upon the plaintiffs to establish their case. 13. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the principle laid down in the above mentioned judgments, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity or the error in the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the trial Court to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. 15. In view of dismissal of civil revision petition, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.