ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 22.07.2024 in I.A.No. 912 of 2023 in O.S.No. 31 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad. 2. Petitioners herein are Defendants 1 and 2, the 1st respondent is plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 3rd defendant in the suit. Parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. Plaintiff filed the suit against Defendants 1 and 2 seeking a direction to the 3 rd respondent to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.8, Acs.9.15 guntas in Survey No.9 and Ac.1.09 guntas in Survey No.10, total admeasuring Acs.11.04 guntas situated at Gatepally Village, Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District duly receiving balance consideration of Rs.9 lacs and in the event, the Court finds that sale consideration amount is not paid by defendants 1 and 2 to the 3rd defendant, they be directed to pay the amount collected from plaintiff on behalf of the 3 rd defendant. In the said suit, Defendants 1 and 2 had taken out the subject Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to reject the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose cause of action and the relief prayed in the suit is barred by limitation. 4. According to Defendants 1 and 2, plaintiff pleaded in the suit that the 1 st defendant is the owner and possessor of Acs.12.20 guntas in Survey No.6, Acs.11.13 guntas in Survey No. 7, Ac.1.00 in Survey No.10, total Acs.25.11 guntas; the 2nd defendant in respect of Acs.6.32 guntas in Survey No.5 situated at Burugugada Village, Dharur Mandal and that he obtained agreements on 08.09.2016 from them independently to purchase their respective lands. Plaintiff further pleaded that the 3rd defendant is the owner and possessor of subject land and that he obtained agreement of sale on 27.09.2016 to purchase the said land but the latter refused to register the sale deed though plaintiff paid Rs.4.91 crores and received by the 1 st defendant on behalf of Defendants 1 to 3 and left balance amount of Rs.9 lacs and that plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the same. It is the case of defendants 1 and 2 that in view of the admitted case of plaintiff that defendants 1 and 2 had already transferred their lands which were the subject matter of agreements dated 08.09.2016 obtained from them, there is no obligation on their part to enforce the agreement of sale dated 27.09.2016, as such, plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit against them. The contention of plaintiff that he never negotiated with the 3 rd respondent and it is the 1 st defendant, who was instrumental in getting the agreement of sale executed by the former and that the 1st defendant received Rs.4.91 crores for and on behalf of Defendants 1 and 2 and that the 3 rd defendant failed to perform his part of contract on the ill- advice of the 1 st defendant is contrary to the documents filed by plaintiff, who came up with such allegations in order to create illusory and sham cause of action to bring the suit against Defendants 1 and 2. It is further averred that the suit was filed after lapse of seven years of the agreement, hence, is barred by limitation. 5. Plaintiff filed the counter-affidavit in the Application opposing the aforesaid claim of Defendants 1 and 2, contending that the subject I.A. is only to harass and to drag the proceedings of the suit. It is settled law that for adjudication of Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC., the averments made in the plaint only and in this case, it does not disclose that plaint is barred under law nor that suit is not maintainable for want of cause of action. It is specifically pleaded with regard to cause of action, which reads as under: “ The above facts constitute the cause of action which accrued to the plaintiff on 08.09. It is specifically pleaded with regard to cause of action, which reads as under: “ The above facts constitute the cause of action which accrued to the plaintiff on 08.09. 2016 when the defendants had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of Acres 43-07 Guntas and on various dates when the Defendants No 1 and 2 had executed sale deeds in respect of Acres 32-03 Guntas on 30.03.2022, leaving balance of Agricultural land admeasuring Ac 0-20 Gts in Survey No. 8, land admeasuring Ac 9-15 Gts in Sarvey No 9 and land admeasuring Ac 1-09 Gts in Survey No. 10, totally admeasuring Acres 11-04 Guntas situated at Gatepally Village of Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District to be registered and when in 2017bwhen the defendant received the amount from the Plaintiff and on 30.03.2022 when last sale deed was executed leaving balance extent of land admeasuring Acres 11-04 Guntas and lastly on 20.07.2023 when the Plaintiff had notice of refusal of the third Defendant, to execute the registered sale deed on regular demands being made, since 6.12.2021. The cause of action still continues” It is the case of plaintiff that the 1 st defendant agreed to sell the land totally admeasuring Acs.43-07 guntas in the above mentioned survey numbers in Burugugadda Village and Gatepally Village of Dharur Mandal, Vikarabad District for Rs. 11,58,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Only) per acre and agreed to execute the sale deed either in his favour or his nominees, accordingly plaintiff agreed to purchase the said land from the family of the 1st defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,99,96,650/- (Rupees Four Crores Ninety Nine Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Six hundred and Fifty only) and accordingly, three separate agreements were executed by Defendants 1 and 2 along with the 3 rd defendant in this regard. Defendants 1 and 2 entered into Agreements of Sale dated 08.09.2016, and the 3 rd defendant on 27.09.2016 with plaintiff. It is his further case that defendants had till date registered Acs.32-03 guntas leaving Acs.11.04 guntas belonging to the 3rd defendant. Defendants had handed over possession of the property on 30-03-2022 totally admeasuring Acs.43-07 guntas to plaintiff after receipt of Rs.4.91 crores and is carrying on natural farming. When contacted for execution of sale deed in respect of balance land, Defendants 1 and 2 informed to contact the 3rd defendant directly. Defendants had handed over possession of the property on 30-03-2022 totally admeasuring Acs.43-07 guntas to plaintiff after receipt of Rs.4.91 crores and is carrying on natural farming. When contacted for execution of sale deed in respect of balance land, Defendants 1 and 2 informed to contact the 3rd defendant directly. On 06.12.2021, when plaintiff demanded, the 3rd defendant used filthy language and tried to browbeat him, which compelled plaintiff to lodge a complaint with Dharur Police Station and the same resulted in registration of Crime No. 179 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 504 , 506 R/w 34 of IPC . It is contended that provisions of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of the case as the plaint not only discloses the cause of action but also the plaint is not barred by any law. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. The trial Court, after carefully considering the contentions of both the parties, observed that ‘viewed in the context of the suit relief, if the averments of plaint in paras 10 to 19 in conjunction and after a wholesome reading, it is discernible that the 1 st defendant had negotiated with plaintiff and took payments for himself as well as on behalf of his wife and son who are Defendants 2 and 3 in respect of the property that was sold by them including suit schedule property owned by the 3 rd defendant’ and relying on the various judgments made a mention in the order, held that there are no merits in this petition and accordingly, dismissed the same, vide order under Revision. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners Sri Vadeendra Joshi submits that his clients, pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 08.09.2016, had already transferred their lands, as such, they discharged their obligation under the agreement and that there is no obligation on their part to enforce the agreement of sale dated 27.09.2016 said to have been executed between plaintiff and the 3rd defendant in respect of the subject property. It is argued that as per clause (1) of the agreement dated 27.09.2016, time fixed for the purpose of contract was six months along with extendable time period of three months from the date of agreement. It is argued that as per clause (1) of the agreement dated 27.09.2016, time fixed for the purpose of contract was six months along with extendable time period of three months from the date of agreement. Further, it was contended that period of limitation for a suit for specific performance as prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is three years from the date fixed for performance. As per the plaint averments and the agreement of sale dated 27.09.2016, it is clear that the last date for performance was 27.06.2016, however, plaintiff chose to file the suit after lapse of seven years from the date fixed for the purpose of contract. Therefore, it is contended vehemently by learned counsel that suit is barred by limitation, as such, the same is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions, in support of his contentions: 1) Chhotanbhen v. Kritibhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakka, AIR 2018 SC 2447 2) Salim D.Agboatwala v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar, AIR 2021 SC 5212 3) Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India, AIR 2020 SC 2721 4) P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy, AIR 2015 SC 2485 5) Habib Alladin v. Mohammed Ahmed, 2022 (1) ALD 661 6) Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Mir Zaheer Mohammed Khan, 2018(1) ALD 1 7) Dahiben v. Arvindhbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (D)(died), (2020) 7 SCC 366 8) Atmananda v. Ramakrishna Tapovanam, (2005) 10 SCC 51 9) T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 10) I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal , [ (1998) 2 SCC 70 ] 11) Khatri Hotels Pvt. Limited v. Union of India (UOI) , [ (2011) 9 SCC 126 ] 12) Ragam Yellaiah v. Chintha Shankaraiah , [ 2003 (5) ALT 403 ] 13) M.A.E. Kumar Krishna Varma v. Sri Ramoji Rao, 2008(6) ALT 688 14) Urvashiben v. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi , [ 2019 (1) ALT 1 (SC)] 8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Kishore Rai appearing on behalf of Ms. Divya Rai Sohni, learned counsel for respondent - plaintiff refuted the objections raised by Defendants 1 and 2, inter alia, contending that the cause of action is a bundle of packages for which purpose, averments of plaint alone have to be taken into account. According to him, limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. Divya Rai Sohni, learned counsel for respondent - plaintiff refuted the objections raised by Defendants 1 and 2, inter alia, contending that the cause of action is a bundle of packages for which purpose, averments of plaint alone have to be taken into account. According to him, limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. The 1st defendant, who had actively participated in negotiations and received substantial part of sale consideration on behalf of the 3 rd defendant is also liable along with the 2 nd defendant who is his wife in the event the suit is decreed, therefore, I.A. is liable to be rejected, contended learned Senior Counsel. Plaintiff paid Rs.4.91 crores to the 3rd defendant and the balance payable is Rs. 9 lacs and they refused to execute the sale deed in respect of the subject land to gain illegally and cause wrongful loss to plaintiff, having executed the sale deed for an extent of land admeasuring Acs. 32.04 guntas as on 30.03.2022 and the 3 rd defendant being the son of the 1 st defendant refusing to execute the agreement of sale dated 27.09.2016 that too having accepted the consideration is nothing but to avoid execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon the following judgments: 1) Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali , [(2020) 7 SCC 361] 2) Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 3) Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty , [ (2023) 1 SCC 355 ] 4) Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh , [ (2020) 16 SCC 601 ] 5) Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, (2007) 10 SCC 59 6) N.V Srinivasa Murthy vs. Mariyamma , [ (2005) 5 SCC 548 ] 9. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having perused the record, this Court records its findings as under: Before delving into the issue, it is apposite to extract Order VII rule 11, as under: Order VII Rule 11. Having heard learned counsel on either side and having perused the record, this Court records its findings as under: Before delving into the issue, it is apposite to extract Order VII rule 11, as under: Order VII Rule 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 written 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: d) Where it is not filed in duplicate, e) Where the plaintiff fails 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-papers, 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 10. It is settled principle of law that while dealing with the Petitions filed under Order VII Rule 11, Courts have to be cautious and try to wriggle out the clever drafting of the counsel which has created illusion of cause of action. The law which deals with the same is extracted hereunder: In DAHIBEN’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the underlying object of Order VII rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. At Para No.24 of the above said Judgment, the Hon’ble. In such a case it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted. At Para No.24 of the above said Judgment, the Hon’ble. Supreme Court held citing the case law in Swamy Atmanand Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam (2005) 10 SCC 51 , as under “24. Cause of Action, thus means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can be includes all the material facts on which it is founded”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467) held that while considering an Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words. 5. “The learned Munsiff must remember that if on a meaningful – not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O VII R. 11, CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned there is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing." In L.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( (1998) 2 SCC 70 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action and what is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint. In Khatri Hotels Pvt., Ltd., & Anr. V. Union of India & Anr., ( (2011) 9 SCC 126 ) held that the use of the word ‘first’ between the words ‘sue’ and ‘accrued’ would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. V. Union of India & Anr., ( (2011) 9 SCC 126 ) held that the use of the word ‘first’ between the words ‘sue’ and ‘accrued’ would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive violation of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued. 11. It is also settled law that whether plaint discloses cause of action or not should be determined on the basis of the averments made in the plaint alone and in order to ascertain the same, plaint has to be read in a meaningful manner and the Court cannot consider the merits of the matter at that stage. In that regard, reliance has been made on the judgment in MAE Kumar Krishna Varma v. Ramoji Rao (supra). It is also held in the said judgment that if the plaint discloses some cause of action, the same is sufficient even though the chances of success for the plaintiff in the suit are remote. 12. On bare perusal of the plaint, it is clearly evident that the 1st defendant being the father of the 2nd defendant, stood in forefront with respect to the transactions between plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 on the one hand and the 3 rd defendant on the other. In that regard, the 1st defendant had negotiated with plaintiff and took payments for himself as well as on behalf of his wife and son i.e. Defendants 2 and 3 respectively in respect of the property sold by them which also included the suit schedule property owned by the 3 rd defendant. It is the specific pleading of plaintiff that he never negotiated with the 3rd defendant and it is the 1st defendant who was instrumental in getting the agreement of sale executed by the 3 rd defendant after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.4.91 crores and on behalf of defendants 1 and 2, as per the receipts executed by the 1 st defendant. To buttress the contention that the 1 st defendant was instrumental in getting the properties registered in favour of plaintiff, it is germane to refer to para 18 of the plaint. “ 18. That the Plaintiff states that the Defendant No. 3 have also filed an application to quash the FIR in Crime No. 179 of 2021 vide Crl. P. No. 2434 of 2023 and filed the receipts for the amount of Rs.4,91,00,000/-and pleaded that in so far as Defendants No. 3 is concerned the Defendant no. 3 had not received the balance of sale consideration as such had not executed the sale deed, which fact is false and incorrect as Defendant no. 3 never negotiated with the Plaintiff as it was only the Defendant no. I who had negotiated and only Defendant no. I took the payments for himself as well as on behalf of his wife and son. Therefore, the contention of the third Defendant is absolutely false and incorrect, as the Plaintiff never negotiated with the third Defendant and it is the first Defendant who was instrumental in getting the agreement of sale executed by the third Defendant and had received a sum of Rs.4,91,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Ninety One Lakh only) for and on behalf of the Defendants as per receipts executed by the Defendant no.1.” 13. From the conspectus of the above facts, one can easily divulge that the 1st defendant represented both Defendants 2 and 3 and in addition, it is also a fact from the averments of the plaint that plaintiff had also issued legal notice dated 20.07.2023 calling upon the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property. Further, it is the specific claim of plaintiff that the 1st defendant having received substantial sale consideration even on behalf of the 3rd defendant, who is none other than his own son, cannot disown his role and responsibility. Plaintiff also claimed that the 1 st defendant has not even denied his claim of receiving the sale consideration on behalf of the 3 rd defendant as such, the contention of defendants in their Petition that they discharged their obligation under agreement of sale by executing the registered sale deeds in favour of plaintiff does not hold water. 14. Plaintiff also claimed that the 1 st defendant has not even denied his claim of receiving the sale consideration on behalf of the 3 rd defendant as such, the contention of defendants in their Petition that they discharged their obligation under agreement of sale by executing the registered sale deeds in favour of plaintiff does not hold water. 14. It is also settled law that cause of action is not pure question of law but it is a mixed question of fact and law. Admittedly, plaintiff had specifically pleaded about the role /responsibility of defendants 1 and 2 with respect to executing the sale deeds by the 3rd defendant in his favour. When such is the clear averment with respect to defendants 1 and 2 and also the specific prayer sought in the plaint with respect to seeking a direction from the Court that petitioners may be directed to transfer the sale consideration to the 3 rd defendant which was already paid by plaintiff to Defendants 1 and 2, it clearly denotes the factum of role of Defendants 1 and 2 in adjudicating the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. When these many factual aspects are yet to be gone into by the trial Court, rejection of plaint, at this stage, cannot be ordered; more so, this Court comes to the conclusion that plaint discloses cause of action since the role and responsibility of Defendants 1 and 2 is intrinsically connected with that of the 3rd defendant in executing the sale deed in favour of plaintiff. 15. Insofar as the contention that suit is barred by limitation, it is to be noted that plea of limitation is always a mixed question of fact and law. In Urvashiben v. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and it cannot be the sole basis for rejecting a plaint. Further, as the plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, as held by a 3-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Limited Vs. Central Bank of India (supra), plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. Further, as the plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, as held by a 3-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Limited Vs. Central Bank of India (supra), plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. In any event, this Court is of the view that the issue relating to limitation aspect can as well be framed during the course of trial in the suit, which can be adjudicated upon by adducing oral and documentary evidence by both the sides in the suit, on merits. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy (supra) categorically held that rejection of plaint is a step of drastic nature and while exercising of power under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC only the averments in plaint have to be read as a whole and the stand of defendants in the written statement or in application for rejection of plaint is wholly immaterial at that stage and that the plaint can be rejected only if the averments made therein ex-facie do not disclose the cause of action and on a reading thereof, the suit appears to be barred under law. 16. Having regard to the proposition of law and also with respect to the reasons given in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court comes to the conclusion that it cannot be said that plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action or is the suit is barred by limitation. The finding given by the trial Court is in consonance with the above proposition of law as well as the reasoning given by this Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under Revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 18. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.