ORDER : V. Srishananda, J. 1. Heard Sri. Karan Khivesra, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri. Sreekar for Sri. Sampath A., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 2.1 Defendants No.1 to 9 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the suit filed by the respondent in OS No.47/2022 for the relief of specific enforcement of the agreement to sell with the following prayer in respect of following immovable property: PRAYER : Wherefore, the plaintiffs prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for the relief of Specific performance of contract; a). Direct the defendants to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration amount of Rs 30,000/-(Thirty thousand rupees only). b) If the defendants fail to execute the sale deed, appoint an court commissioner to execute the sale deed, in favour of the plaintiff, and to hand to over the possession to the plaintiff, with the cost of the defendants; or c). In the alternatively to direct the defendant to refund the earnest money of Rs. 10,40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of agreement till actual repayment, as damages. d) For court cost and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in facts and circumstances of the case, within the interest of justice and SCHEDULE The landed property bearing old Sy No 299/15, now new Sy NO 299/18 P1 meas uring 2. acres 20 Guntas, assessed at Rs.3.12 Rs, and the same is situated at Dhanagur village, kasaba Hobli, Malavalli tq, Mandya Dt. the same his bounded on East;- Land of Kenchegowda, West ;- Maninayakana Kate, North; land of Plaintiff and South Land of Plaintiff. 2.2 Pursuant to the suit summons, plaintiffs laid the claim by contending that there was an agreement to sell in respect of the suit property on 16.12.2003 and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid as an advance. the same his bounded on East;- Land of Kenchegowda, West ;- Maninayakana Kate, North; land of Plaintiff and South Land of Plaintiff. 2.2 Pursuant to the suit summons, plaintiffs laid the claim by contending that there was an agreement to sell in respect of the suit property on 16.12.2003 and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid as an advance. 2.3 There was a further payment of Rs.20,000/- towards the sale consideration and balance amount of Rs.30,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. 2.4 Plaintiff further contended that though plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his portion of the contract, it is the defendants who postponed the execution of the sale deed on account of the ill-health of Sri. Abdul Rawoof, and a fresh sale agreement got executed on 07.08.2015 in a sum of Rs.10,70,000/- as the sale consideration. 2.5 It is further contented by the plaintiff that there was a denial to execute the sale deed and therefore suit came to be filed. 2.6 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance, disputed the suit agreement and also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is hopelessly barred by time. 2.7 Plaintiff opposed the said application by filing detailed written objections. 2.8 Learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of both sides and by impugned Order dismissed the application filed by the defendant inter alia holding in paragraphs No.12 to 15 as under: 12. The defendants contending that, the plaintiff created the agreement on banned stamp papers. Hence, the said agreement is illegal and he cannot claim right on the basis of said created agreement and the plaint brought by the plaintiff does not disclose cause of action. It is not the contention of defendants that, the deceased persons had not executed agreements of sale. In order to ascertain as to the validity of the stamp paper definitely parties should be provided opportunities to establish their contentions. Apart from that, the defendants have not stated the date on which the said stamp papers were ordered to be banned. They have not produced any document to substantiate the said fact. In order to ascertain as to the validity of the stamp paper definitely parties should be provided opportunities to establish their contentions. Apart from that, the defendants have not stated the date on which the said stamp papers were ordered to be banned. They have not produced any document to substantiate the said fact. At this juncture without examining the said aspects in a proper way it cannot be said that, the agreements created on banned papers. Therefore, in order to come to a right conclusion, certainly the matter needs to be tried on merits and it requires pledged trial. 13. Having taken note of the averments made in the plaint and also the relief sought in the plaint, cause of action has been specifically mentioned and attributed the allegations against the defendants. It is the duty of the Court to look into the averments in the plaint and the relief sought for, to know whether the cause of action arises and to know whether the nature of relief is barred under any law. If there is no express bar by implication in law, such suits can be filed. 14. It is well settled that, Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC has to be considered on proper appreciation of the plaint averments. Plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the written statement or on the basis of the application of the defendants. The court need not go into the averments of the written statement or the defence of the defendants, but it is to be decided on the averments in the plaint i.e. the bundle of facts stated therein. Whether the relief could be granted or not, cannot be a ground to reject the plaint. However, the facts as stated requires an issue to be framed and evidence to be led under such circumstances the plaint cannot be rejected. 15. Even assuming that the plaintiff is likely to fail in the suit, that cannot be a ground to go into the merits and decide the matter under order 7 rule 11(a).... and (d) of CPC. Hence in order to ascertain the above aspects need to be gone into a full pledged trial. Therefore this court opines that, the instant applications filed by the defendants is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, I answer above points No.1 in the Negative. 3. and (d) of CPC. Hence in order to ascertain the above aspects need to be gone into a full pledged trial. Therefore this court opines that, the instant applications filed by the defendants is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, I answer above points No.1 in the Negative. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have filed the present revision petition on the following grounds: The impugned order of dismissal of I.A. No.1 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. is illegal, invalid and unsustainable in the eye of law and the same deserves to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. The Court below has grossly erred in not properly appreciating the facts and the documents on record in the proper perspective and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. That, after the demise of the father of the Respondent No.1 to 6 i.e., Late Abdul Rawoof and Respondent No.7 to 9 i.e., Abdul Basheer, the Petitioners/Defendants being Legal Heirs of the said deceased persons after their demise had approached the Tahsildar, Malavalli for transfer of Khatha from their father's name to their name. That, after filing of the said application, the Respondent herein had filed objections dated 14.10.2019 to the said application addressing to the said Tahsildar, Malavalli to not transfer the Khatha in name of the Petitioners with a reason that the father of the Petitioners had executed an Agreement of Sale in name of the Respondent on 20.03.2003 with respect to the Schedule Property. It is pertinent to state that, the Petitioners father have not executed any such agreement of sale as alleged in the Plaint. Further, the date of agreement stated in the objection to application is 20.03.2003 however the fraudulent document produced before the learned trial court and the date stated is 24.03.2003. The copy of the objections filed by the Respondent dated 14.10.2019 along with typed copy and the M.R. No.T-143 dated 21.04.2022 reflecting the name of the Petitioners are is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-B & C. it is pertinent to state that, before the Tahsildar, Malavalli the Respondent has stated that there is only one agreement of sale executed on 20.03.2003, however, in the Plaint filed before the learned trial court the Respondent alleges and has produced two forged sale agreements, first one executed on 24.03.2003 and the second one executed on 07.08.2015. This clearly, proves that only to file a case before the learned trial court and to create a new cause of action, the said agreement dated 07.08.2015 is produced before the Court. The certified copies of the fraudulent agreements dated 24.03.2003 and 07.08.2015, the CC of Plaint and Order Sheet in O.S.No.47/22 are produced as ANNEYURED to G That, if the first agreement is assumed to be true, then for wat reason the Respondent had waited for over 19 years to get executed the sale deed in his favour has not been explained in the Plaint filed by the Respondent. That, after lapse of 19 years now the Respondent had approached the learned trial court by filing suit for specific performance. That, the Respondent has alleged that the second sale agreement was executed on 07.08.2015, however it is pertinent to mention that during that time the father of the Petitioner No.1 to 6 was not keeping well and was admitted to a hospital in Bengaluru I.e., ESIC Medical College, PGIMSR and Model Hospital, Rajajinagar on 01.06.2015 and was discharged on 10.06.2015. That, the health condition of the Petitioner No.1 to 6 father was very serious and he was bed ridden and expired on 01.10.2015. Therefore, it was not possible for him to execute any such document as alleged in the Plaint. The copy of the Discharge Summary is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-H g) The reasons assigned by the Court below in dismissing the I.?.??.? filed under Order 7 Rule 11 are illegal, unreasonable and much against to the facts and the documents on record and admittedly incomplete thereby the court below has passed the impugned order without applying its judicial mind. h) Thus, the impugned order of the court below is biased and uncalled for and thus liable to be interfered by this Hon'ble Court. The Court below has passed the impugned order without applying its judicial mind. j) The dismissal of I.A.No.I is otherwise opposite to law, facts & probabilities and the same amounts to procedural irregularities. k) The Petitioners may be permitted to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing. 4. Sri Karan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the agreement came to be executed on 24.03.2003 and the suit came to be filed in the year 2022. k) The Petitioners may be permitted to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing. 4. Sri Karan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the agreement came to be executed on 24.03.2003 and the suit came to be filed in the year 2022. Therefore the suit is per se barred by limitation, which aspect has not been considered by the learned Trial Judge in proper perspective and sought for admitting the revision petition for further consideration. 5. Per contra, Sri. Sreekar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff representing Sri. A. Sampath supports the impugned order. 6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material law on record meticulously. 7. On such perusal of the material law on record, plaint averments clearly mentions that pursuant to the agreement dated 24.03.2003, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was paid as advance consideration and balance sum of Rs.30,000/- was payable towards the sale consideration. But, execution of the sale deed got postponed on account of the ill-health of Sri. Abdul Rawoof. Therefore, a fresh agreement came to be executed with enhanced sale consideration in a sum of Rs.10,70,000/- on 07.08.2015 and therefore, the question of the computing the limitation from the date of the original agreement dated 24.03.2003 would not arise. 8. Anyway, since the agreements are in dispute, the same needs to be established by the parties by placing necessary material evidence on record on record during the trial as it raises a tribal issue. 9. Such disputed questions cannot be the subject matter of the enquiry under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by holding mini trial. 10. Therefore, the dismissal of the application filed by the defendants needs no interference by this Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 11. Moreover, the question of limitation in the case on hand is a question of law and facts which needs to be decided at the end of the trial by raising a necessary issue. 12. At the most defendant can request the Court to raise an issue with regard to the limitation aspect if not already framed in the suit. 13. With that observation, following order: ORDER Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.