ORDER : V SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri.Rajesh Gowda, learned counsel for revision petitioners. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondent. 2. Defendants Nos.1 to 5 in O.S.No.56/2019 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application vide I.A.No.6 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short). 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A suit for specific enforcement of the contract of agreement to sell dated 17.12.1997 in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as suit property) came to be filed by the plaintiff: “All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.92 (present No.92/P48), measuring 2-00 acres, assessed at Rs.4-00, situated at Mavahalli village, Robertsonpet Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk, and the same is bounded on: Direction Description East Land of Venkateshappa and Lakshmamma West Land of Dobi Muniyappa North Nayakarahalli Gadi South Land of Lakshminarayanappa 4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement inter alia filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to dismiss the suit for want of cause of action and suit is barred by limitation. 5. Plaintiff opposed the said application and by impugned order. 6. Learned Trial Judge has dismissed the said application inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.8 to 15 as under: “8. In the present case, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he entered into a sale agreement on 17.12.1997 with late N. Lokanath, paid the entire sale consideration, and was put in possession of the property. The revenue entries were transferred to his name with the consent of the executant in M.R. No.21/98-99. After the death of the executant, the defendants remained silent and subsequently challenged the katha and refused to execute the sale deed after notice dated 21.01.2019. Thus, the plaint prima facie discloses a cause of action for enforcement of the agreement and for protection of the plaintiff’s possession. 9. Regarding limitation, Article 54 of the Limitation Act provides two possible starting points-the date fixed for performance, or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. 10. In the present case, the plaint nowhere shows that any date was fixed for execution of the sale deed. 9. Regarding limitation, Article 54 of the Limitation Act provides two possible starting points-the date fixed for performance, or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. 10. In the present case, the plaint nowhere shows that any date was fixed for execution of the sale deed. On the contrary, it states that the defendants refused performance only after receipt of the notice dated 21.01.2019. Hence, the question as to when the plaintiff had notice of refusal of performance is a disputed question of fact that cannot be decided without trial. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently held that when limitation depends on disputed facts, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d). Reference may be made to Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510 and Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. (2007) 5 SCC 614 . 12. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants— ILR 2014 KAR 223 (N. Kumar & Anr. v. Suri Appa Rao), and  2023 (2) AKR 348 (AIR Online 2023 KAR 777) were rendered in circumstances where the pleadings themselves clearly revealed that the date for performance had expired long back and there was an unequivocal refusal by the executant, leaving no factual dispute on limitation. 13. However, in the present case, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded continuous possession, acceptance of revenue transfer by the executant, and refusal of performance only in 2019. Therefore, the factual matrix is distinguishable. These precedents apply only when the plaint on its face discloses a clear bar of limitation, which is not so here. 14. Further, as the plaintiff claims possession and part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, his continued possession itself gives rise to a recurring cause of action to seek specific performance. Thus, the question of limitation and the enforceability of the agreement require evidence and cannot be summarily decided. 15. The defendants plea that the plaintiff lacks locus standi or that the agreement is fabricated are matters of defence which must be adjudicated after framing of issues and recording of evidence. At this preliminary stage, the plaint cannot be rejected merely because the defendants dispute its correctness. Therefore, the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC is devoid of merit. At this preliminary stage, the plaint cannot be rejected merely because the defendants dispute its correctness. Therefore, the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC is devoid of merit. The plaint discloses a clear cause of action, and limitation being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be decided without trial. As such I answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative.” 7. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 to 5 are before this Court in this revision on following grounds: That the impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Trial Court rejecting the application filed by the Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is against to the well-established principles of law and without application of mind, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. That the suit, on a bare reading of the averments made in the plaint, is devoid cause of action and also being barred under article 54 of the Limitation Act, liable to be rejection under Order 7, Rule 11(a), & (d), of CPC and the suit filed after lapse of 22 years and there is an inordinate delay in filing of the suit, which is not considered by the court below. The trial court has to come to conclusion that the question of limitation and the enforceability of the agreement require evidence and cannot be summarily decided and the suit filed after lapse of 22 years, and the same shall not be entertained by the court below. The trial court has wrongly come to conclusion that the defendants plea that the plaintiff lacks locus standi or that the agreement is fabricated are matters of defence which must be adjudicated after framing of issues and recoding of evidence. At this preliminary stage, the plaint cannot be rejected merely because the defendants dispute its correctness. The court below failed to understand the provision of under order 7 rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC That the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in SopanSukhdeo Sable v Asstt. Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137 , that the basic question is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137 , that the basic question is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated. If a clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing examining the party searchingly under Or.10, CPC. It is true that by ingenious drafting a cause of action in the nature of red herrings cannot be brought into the judicial arena. Bogus and irresponsible litigation cannot be permitted. That para 11 of the plaint that the cause of action arose on 17.12.1997, when the agreement of sale entered, on 21.01.2019, when notice issued to defendants. Hence, the suit is hopelessly barred by law as per pleadings in the plaint. That the Hon'ble Trial Court has failed to apply the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to rejection of Plaint where cases are filed only to harass other party by misusing the process of court. In this regard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 (7) SCC 174 is as follows: Para 7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action as to the suit is barred by any law. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action as to the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their fact value, I they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage. That the Learned Trial Judge failed to find out whether the Plaint discloses cause of action or not from the averments made in the Plaint and documents annexed thereto. In the present case, the Plaint and the documents produced by the Plaintiff clearly discloses that there is no cause of action and the Hon'ble Trial Court has failed to guard against the mischief of a litigant, misusing the process of court by entering into false litigation merely for the purpose of harassing other party and to make wrongful gain. That the Hon'ble Trial Court has not applied its mind while rejecting the application of the Petitioner for the reasons that the bare perusal of the Plaint does not disclose the cause of action and it is manifestly vexatious and meritless. From the Plaint along with the documents produced, it discloses that there is no cause of action and it is only a collusive suit to make unlawful gain. This aspect has not been appreciated by the Trial Court and no reasons are assigned even after specific contentions by the Defendants. From the Plaint along with the documents produced, it discloses that there is no cause of action and it is only a collusive suit to make unlawful gain. This aspect has not been appreciated by the Trial Court and no reasons are assigned even after specific contentions by the Defendants. The Learned Trial Judge failed to consider the fact that the averments in the Plaint and the documents produced along with the Plaint clearly discloses that the Plaintiff has filed utterly vexatious suit and it is nothing but abuse of process of court. The Learned Judge of the Trial Court has failed to exercise the powers vested with the Court, as per the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge has failed to consider that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d), which provides the false and vexatious cases should not be allowed to occupy the Court's time. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that learned Trial Judge has not understood the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC where the frivolous suits are to be dismissed at the inception especially when the suit is filed after 22 years of the agreement to sell has come into being. It is further argued that suit agreement has been executed by father of the revision petitioners, who is no more. Therefore, sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 9. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioners, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly the suit agreement is of the year 1997. The defendants’ father namely N. Lokanath has subscribed his signature to the said agreement. 11. Whether at all the said agreement is genuine agreement or not cannot be decided by the Trial Court at the time of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. 12. Likewise, question of limitation in the case on hand is a mixed question of law and fact inasmuch as the suit came to be filed in the year 2019 in respect of the agreement to sell dated 17.12.1997 and plaint averments in this regard clearly mentions that the legal notice came to be issued on 21.01.2019. 13. 12. Likewise, question of limitation in the case on hand is a mixed question of law and fact inasmuch as the suit came to be filed in the year 2019 in respect of the agreement to sell dated 17.12.1997 and plaint averments in this regard clearly mentions that the legal notice came to be issued on 21.01.2019. 13. Cause of action paragraph which is paragraph No.11 of the plaint reads as under: “That the cause of action for this suit arose on 17.12.1997, the date of sale agreement; On 21/01/2019, the date of legal notice and on subsequent dates when the defendants failed to perform their part of contract and the suit schedule property is situated at Mavahalli Village, Robertsonpet Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The suit filed is within time.” 14. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that after some period, Revenue Authorities on account of the consent of N. Lokanath, considering the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property, transferred the katha of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff vide MR No.21/98-99 and RTC Extract in this regard clearly mentions the name of the plaintiff. 15. Therefore, defendants cannot contend that after the death of their father, they are not aware of the transactions with regard to the suit property that too only on the say of the defendants. 16. In other words, when there are revenue entries transferred in the name of the plaintiff during the period of N. Lokanath, the defendants cannot maintain that they were not aware of the suit agreement at all. Revenue entries are not even challenged by the defendants till today. 17. These are the aspects of the matter which needs to be considered by the Trial Court by directing the parties to place necessary material evidence and after full- fledged trial. Thus, the suit needs to be considered on merits. 18. Therefore, the question of limitation cannot also be treated as a bar for proceeding with the suit. Hence, the rejection of the application is just and proper. 19. According, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed.