ORDER : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Pranab Kumar, learned counsel for 1 st respondent. Perused the record. 2. 1 st respondent had filed a suit vide O.S.No.20 of 2018 against the petitioner and 2nd respondent seeking cancellation of gift deed bearing document No.10100/2006 dated 21.07.2006 as fraudulent and declare the Sale cum General Power of Attorney (with possession) bearing registered document No.1477/2014 as null and void. Petitioner being defendant No.2 in the said suit had filed written statement. Basing on the pleadings, learned trial Court has framed issues and posted the suit for trial. 3. At that stage, petitioner herein/defendant No.2 had filed an I.A.No.428 of 2024 in O.s.No.20 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the said plaint on the following grounds: (i) He has filed written statement in the said suit specifically pleading in paragraph No.11 that the suit is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed. (ii) Suit itself appears is not maintainable on law and facts, the same is barred by limitation. (iii) Plaintiff is claiming to cancel registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.10100 dated 21.07.2006. (iv) there is no cause of action in the plaint. 4. The said application was opposed by 1st respondent/plaintiff contending that the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, it is a triable issue, therefore on the said grounds plaint cannot be rejected. 5. Vide order dated 05.09.2024, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, it should be decided during the course of trial. Learned trial Court has stated that it has framed additional issue with regard to limitation. 6. Petitioner filed the present revision challenging the order dated 05.09.2024 in I.A.No.428 of 2024 in O.S.No.20 of 2018 contending that the trial Court framed additional issue without hearing the parties. The same is bad in law. 7. The contents of plaint in paragraph Nos.5 and 10 have to be read together, but not in isolation. If one can read the said contentions/pleadings of plaint in paragraph Nos.5 and 10 together, the suit is barred by limitation. Without considering the said aspect, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application. 8. The same is bad in law. 7. The contents of plaint in paragraph Nos.5 and 10 have to be read together, but not in isolation. If one can read the said contentions/pleadings of plaint in paragraph Nos.5 and 10 together, the suit is barred by limitation. Without considering the said aspect, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application. 8. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent would contend that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, the same will be considered during the course of trial, as it is a triable issue and the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the said application. There is no error in it. 9. As discussed supra, 1 st respondent/plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit on 19.03.2018. Petitioner/defendant No.2, 2nd respondent/defendant No.1 have already filed the written statements in the said suit. They have taken specific plea that the suit is barred by limitation. However, learned trial Court did not frame an issue with regard to limitation. 10. It is relevant to note that the learned trial Court can frame issues/additional issues at any stage of the suit. Therefore, noticing the said mistake, learned trial Court framed an issue with regard to limitation on 11.03.2024. If the petitioner is aggrieved by framing of the said additional issue on the ground that the said additional issue was framed without hearing the parties, petitioner has to challenge it. But, he has not challenged the said order. 11. As observed by the learned trial Court in the impugned order the issues are framed on 20.11.2018 and 13.09.2023, petitioner has put up the defence stating that during the course of inspection by this Court, it is pointed out that the suit is filed for cancellation of registered gift deed vide document No.10100 of 2006 dated 21.06.2006 and the plaintiff filed the present suit on 22.03.2018 after lapse of 11 years 8 months which is time barred etc. On 11.03.2024, as the limitation is a question of law and fact, trial Court has framed as an additional issue, “whether the suit is barred by limitation”? The petitioner did not take any steps challenging the same. 12. As rightly held by the learned trial Court, limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. 13. On 11.03.2024, as the limitation is a question of law and fact, trial Court has framed as an additional issue, “whether the suit is barred by limitation”? The petitioner did not take any steps challenging the same. 12. As rightly held by the learned trial Court, limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. 13. In paragraph No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically contended that defendant No.1 promised the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 would be helpful in the old age of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff would reside and enjoy the suit schedule property till the plaintiff and his wife’s life time. He would look after the plaintiff and his wife in a proper way without causing any mental or physical distress making believe the same, the defendant No.1 fraudulently and misrepresenting the plaintiff that the plaintiff and his wife would reside in the suit schedule property till the life time of the plaintiff and his wife coerced the plaintiff who was aged 75 years at that point of time to execute a family settlement deed incorporating the above mentioned clause and after that their life time the defendant No.1 would succeed to the property however, the defendant No.1 got executed a registered gift deed bearing document No.10100 of 2006 dated 21.07.2006 instead of family settlement deed making the plaintiff under an impression that the suit schedule property would be under the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment till his and his wife’s life time. 14. In paragraph No.6 of the plaintiff he has specifically mentioned that the cause of action arose on 14.02.2018 when few unknown persons claiming to be realtors came into the suit schedule property and informed the plaintiff that they intend to buy the suit schedule property and informed that the suit schedule property was sold away by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2, on 05.03.2018 when the plaintiff took encumbrance certificate found that the plaintiff has executed a registered gift deed bearing document No.10100/2006 dated 21.07.2006 in favour of the defendant No.1 and that the defendant No.1 has executed Agreement of Sale cum-General Power of Attorney (with possession) in respect of suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 vide registered document bearing No.1477 of 2014 dated 17.02.2014 and on 11.03.2018 admitted that he has intention to sell the suit schedule property. 15. 15. Thus, basing on the said pleadings, learned trial Court had framed additional issue with regard to limitation. Thus, this Court of the view that the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. The said issues are triable issues. The learned trial Court will consider the said issue at the time of trial. On the said petitioner can’t seek rejection of plaint. On the consideration of the said aspects only vide impugned order dated 05.09.2024 learned trial Court dismissed the said I.A. It is a reasoned order. There is no error, much less jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Therefore, this revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order framing additional issue on the ground that the said additional issue was framed without hearing the parties. 16. With the aforesaid observations, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.