ORDER : V.SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri Gopala Gowda and Sri R.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendants in OS No.58/2022 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are as under: A suit came to be filed in OS No. 58/2022 with the following prayer in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’): “Wherefore, the plaintiff humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree for the relief to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property in pursuance of Registered Sale Deed dated. 24/11/1971 stands in the name of his father Dasegowda, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 to 6 agents or anybody acting on behalf from interfering with grant the schedule property in manner whatsoever and such other Court cost and relief 's in the interest of justice. SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of alienated land bearing Sy.No.145/8, measuring 0.08 guntas of Hommaragalli Vilalge, Hampaura Hobli, H.D. Kote Taluk Mysuru District which includes the building bound bounded on; East by: House and vacant site of children of Bojegowda West by: Remaining site and House, measuring 0.08 guntas in Sy No.145/8 belongs to children of Ningegowda North by: Layout formed by Bogagnanjappa now by Subbanna South by: Mysuru-Manandawadi Main Road. Sd/- Advocate for Sd/- Plaintiff Plaintiff” 4. Plaint averments would reveal that suit property earlier belonged to H.M.Shivanne Gowda, S/o.late Muddumade Gowda of Hombaragahalli Village. Said Shivanne Gowda is none other than the husband of the second defendant and father of defendant Nos. 3 to 6. He died about 10 years earlier leaving behind defendant Nos. 2 to 6 as his legal representatives. 5. It is further contended that Shivanne Gowda, for his legal necessity and for the benefit of the family, said to have sold 0.08 guntas of land in Sy.No.145/8 of Hombaragahally Village in favour of Dasegowda of Gundathur Village under the registered sale deed in the year 1971. 6. The said Dasegowda is the son of plaintiff and he died about one and half years earlier leaving behind plaintiff and others as his legal representatives. 6. The said Dasegowda is the son of plaintiff and he died about one and half years earlier leaving behind plaintiff and others as his legal representatives. Father of the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 0.08 guntas as aforesaid which are the subject matter of the sale deed dated 24.11.1971. 7. It is further contended that defendants unnecessarily interfered with the suit property. Therefore, suit for declaration came to be filed. 8. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking perpetual injunction and consequential reliefs and also seeking the relief of declaration and possession by way of an amendment, which specifically shows that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and suit is barred by limitation. 9. It is also contended that the alleged cause of action in the suit is illusory and imaginary in nature and therefore sought for rejection of the plaint. 10. Learned trial judge after entertaining the objections of the plaintiff on the said application, dismissed the application, inter alia holding as under: “10. G. NAGARAJ vs B.P. MRUTHUNJAYANNA 11 April 2023 Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal have discussed in the case that - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - For dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required to be seen. The defence of the defendants cannot be even looked into. When the ground pleaded for rejection of the plaint is the absence of cause of action, the Court has to examine the plaint and see whether any cause the Court has to examine the plaint and see whether any cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint." 11. Rejection of plaint and mixed question of law and fact - this is another important facet to consider while reading order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The major chunk of jurisprudence around order 7 Rule 11 reveals around rule 11(d), which has provision relating to the rejection of a plaint in cases where the plaint is barred by law. Rejection of plaint and mixed question of law and fact - this is another important facet to consider while reading order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The major chunk of jurisprudence around order 7 Rule 11 reveals around rule 11(d), which has provision relating to the rejection of a plaint in cases where the plaint is barred by law. Now in cases where the conclusion of the bar of law is a mixed question of law and fact, the Court does not order the rejection of a plaint. The explanation for such a procedure is quite straight forward, since a mixed question of law and fact cannot be determined on the sole basis of a plaint, and necessitates proper consideration of the evidence by the Court, the plaints are not dismissed/rejected in such cases. As stated above the Court needs to only look at the averments in the plaint and reach a finding on the question of rejecting the plaint. 12. In the case Saranpal Kaur Anand V/s. Praduman Singh Chandhok the Hon'ble Supreme Court via a two judge bench had contradictory opinions on whether the plaint should be dismissed considering the time barred limitation. While justice Sanjeev Khanna was of the opinion that the plaint itself portrayed that the suit was time barred, Justice Bela Trivedi opined that such a limitation was the mixed question of law and fact, and thus needed a trial. 13. In another case Smt. Sitha Sripad Narvekar and others V/s. Ayduth Timlo the Bombay High Court stated that for the purpose of reaching an interference and the application of order 7 Rule 11(d), the averments in the plaint must be scrutinized without adding or subtracting anything. Since res judicata is both a mixed question of law and fact, the Court will have to inspect it on the basis of evidence produced by the parties on the merits of the claim. 14. In another case of Papat and Kotecha property V/s. State Bank of India staff Association (2005) 7 SCC 510 , it is held that in respect of the proposition that order 7 Rule 11(d) was not applicable in a case where a question has to be decided on the basis of fact that the suit was barred by limitation. 15. The counsel for the applicant/defendant has relied the judgments of Hon'ble High Court along with memo as under mentioned: 1. 15. The counsel for the applicant/defendant has relied the judgments of Hon'ble High Court along with memo as under mentioned: 1. AIR Online 2019 SC 136:: (2020)2 MADLW 889 between Raghavendra Sharan singh V/s. Ram Prasanna. 2. (2007) 10 SCC 59 between Ramprakash Guptha V/s. Rajeev Kumar Guptha and others. 3. AIR Online 2020 SC 634 :: (2020) 4 KERLT 453 between Dahiben V/s. Aravind Bai kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) THR LRS. 4. AIR Online 2022 SC 356 between C.S. Ramaswamy V/s. K Senthil. 16. On careful reading of the above case laws it appears that, the facts and circumstances of above cases and facts case in hand are different. The facts of the above cases are not aptly applicable to the present facts of the case in hand because the facts and circumstances of the case are different in nature. In the present suit it needs trial to decide the dispute arose between the parties to the suit. Further it has to be looking into the documents and recording the evidence from both side is very much required and then is to become conclusion on merit. In the present suit the plaintiff has contended that, the property bearing survey No.145/8 total measuring 0.16 guntas out the total extent the father of the plaintiff has purchased the 00.08 guntas from Shivannegowda under a registered sale deed dated 24/11/1971. In the purchased property the family of the plaintiff is built a house and they are residing therein. However at this stage only on the reasons stated in the present application, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has filed the present suit after barred by law of limitation. All the cases are in its different facts and circumstances, each cases are not similar, on the basis of reasons stated in the application, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that the plaint has to be rejected. It requires full fledged trial, on the basis of documents and on recording of evidences it has to be decided. 17. In the light of the above discussion, I am of considered view that the present application is thus without any merit, same is liable to be dismissed. Consequently I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.” 11. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have filed the present revision petition. 12. 17. In the light of the above discussion, I am of considered view that the present application is thus without any merit, same is liable to be dismissed. Consequently I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.” 11. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have filed the present revision petition. 12. Sri Gopala Gowda, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that the suit as is filed by the plaintiff initially for permanent injunction and subsequently for declaration and possession is per se not maintainable. 13. He would further contend that the learned trial judge failed to appreciate the scope of the suit when it was filed at the first instance and subsequently after the amendment. 14. He also pointed out that the learned trial judge grossly erred in holding that the dispute between the parties was with regard to the land in Sy.No.145/8 and admittedly the sale deed said to have been executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff was to the extent of 0.08 guntas. 15. Therefore, the cause of action to the suit as is mentioned in the plaint is imaginary in nature besides the suit being barred by limitation having regard to the date of the sale being, 24.11.1971, which is also a nominal sale deed and thus sought for allowing revision petition. 16. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri R.S.Ravi, representing the plaintiff supports the impugned order. 17. He would further contend that whether the sale deed dated 24.11.1971 was a nominal sale deed or not cannot be decided by the trial Court by holding a mini trial at the time of considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 18. He would further contend that, question of limitation in the case on hand is mixed question of law and facts and therefore it has to be decided after recording the evidence of the parties and after full-fledged trial. Therefore, rejection of the application by the learned trial judge is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is a dispute as to the sale deed executed on 24.11.1971 in favour of the plaintiff’s father. 19. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 20. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is a dispute as to the sale deed executed on 24.11.1971 in favour of the plaintiff’s father. While the defendants contend that it is a nominal sale deed, it is the plaintiff who propounds that it is a regular sale deed. 21. Such a disputed question cannot be the subject matter of enquiry under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as is held in catena of judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court. 22. Further, the question of limitation is also in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case is mixed question of law and facts which requires recording of the evidence of the parties. 23. Unless the plaintiff is capable of demonstrating by mathematical deduction as to the question of limitation, on said ground, the plaint cannot be thrown out at the threshold. 24. Further, for consideration of Order VII and Rule 11 of CPC, what is to be considered is the plaint averments alone and not the defence that has been coined out by the defendant. 25. Therefore, taking note of the above disputed facts in the case on hand, necessarily the trial Court is required to raise proper issues with regard to the validity of the sale deed dated 24.11.1971 as well as the question of limitation and record the evidence of the parties and trash out the differences between the parties in a full fledged trial. If the trial Court fails to raise necessary issues in this regard on account of the rival pleadings, parties may resort to Order XIV Rule 5 CPC. With that liberty the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is merit-less and hereby dismissed. (ii) All contentions are kept open to be heard during the trial in accordance with law.