JUDGMENT : H.P.SANDESH, J. This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This regular second appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court against the order passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The said application is resisted by learned counsel for the plaintiff by filing statement of objections. 3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings in the plaint and also prayer sought in the plaint in paragraph No.9, comes to the conclusion that Tahsildar initiated the proceedings in L.R.F.No.6/2005-06 and the possession of defendants’ father was shown to the extent of 4 acres 6 guntas and the defendants’ father during his life time had not challenged the said entries until his death on 03.04.2010. 4. It is argued that Hanumantharayappa’s daughter Smt. Padmamma filed O.S.No.613/2009 before Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli for partition and separate possession of Sy.No.39 measuring 4 acres 6 guntas, the measurement mentioned in the plaint. It is further argued that the question of jurisdiction, limitation and cause of action has to be adjudicated only after full-fledged trial and not at this stage. The plaintiff at this stage has made out he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The extent of possession of the defendants over 5 acres is a triable issue and the same has to be adjudicated at trial. The Trial Court also having considered the material on record, in paragraph No.13 comes to the conclusion that after death of Hanumantharayappa, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have challenged M.R.No.2/2008-09 before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.176/2013-14 and also revision petition was filed by the plaintiff in Revision Petition No.95/2017. Hence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that dispute was in force in the year 2008 itself, but the suit for declaration is filed in the year 2019 after lapse of 10 years and 38 years after the decision of the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and the same is taken note of and the Trial Court taken note of prayer sought and allowed the application. 5. Therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and the same is taken note of and the Trial Court taken note of prayer sought and allowed the application. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.15017/2020 before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, reversed the findings of the Trial Court in paragraph No. No.19 with regard to the prayer No.(b) of the plaint. However, in detail discussion was made in paragraph No.22 with regard to the proceedings between the parties and also taken note of service of notice in the appeal in paragraph No.24 and in paragraph Nos.25 and 26 observed regarding starting point of limitation and comes to the conclusion that if the date of cause of action between the parties in the Revenue Department is taken as the basis in respect of five years, then the suit is barred by limitation. 6. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that when the First Appellate Court reversed the findings with regard to prayer No.(b) is concerned, but committed an error in coming to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation and the same is erroneous, unless the Trial Court records evidence, since the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the Trial Court cannot decide the said question only on the basis of pleadings and evidence of parties ought to have been recorded. Hence, committed an error. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the caveator- respondent Nos.1 and 2 would vehemently contend that both the Courts have not committed any error and taken note of issue involved between the parties and when the issue was taken before the Revenue Authorities and challenge was made, taken note of the same and passed an order that suit is barred by limitation. Hence, this Court cannot interfere with the same. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2 and having considered the reasoning given by both the Courts, the substantial question of law that arise for consideration of this Court are: (1) Whether both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit only on the ground of limitation invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC? (2) What order? (2) What order? Substantial question of law No.(1) 9. This Court has already secured the records of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Having considered the reasoning given by both the Courts, the main issue involved between the parties is with regard to whether suit is barred by limitation. No doubt, Trial Court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC, it is settled law that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC, the Court has to look into only the averments of the plaint and not the defense of the defendants. It is also important to note that when grounds are urged on the point of limitation and the same involves mixed question of fact and law, the Court has to record the evidence and then decide the issue of limitation. In the case on hand, no such evidence is recorded before the Trial Court and only on the basis of pleadings, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation. 10. The Apex Court also in the recent judgment reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 975 in the case of P. Kumarakurubaran Vs. P. Narayanan and Others in paragraph No.12.1, observed that at this preliminary stage, while dealing with Order 7 rule 11 application, the averments made in the plaint must be taken at their face value and assumed to be true. Once the date of knowledge is specifically pleaded and forms the basis of the cause of action, the issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily. It becomes a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Therefore, rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation without permitting the parties to lead evidence, is legally unsustainable. 11. The First Appellate Court also while considering the grounds which have been urged, rightly comes to the conclusion in paragraph No.19 regarding prayer (b) of the plaint, but committed an error while considering the issue involved between the parties in the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and also the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and only considered the pleadings of the parties and failed to take note of the fact that no evidence was recorded before the Trial Court on the point of limitation. It is settled law that when mixed question of law and fact is involved, the Court cannot entertain the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC and has to record the evidence on the point of limitation, but committed an error in coming to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation only on the pleadings of the parties. When such being the case, the First Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the order of the Trial Court passed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. Therefore, I answer substantial question of law No.(1) framed by this Court as ‘affirmative’ that both the Courts committed an error in allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC without recording the evidence and when the issue between the parties involves both the question of fact and law and it requires recording of evidence, ought not to have invoked Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) read with Section 151 CPC and the Court has to record the evidence and consider all the issues involved in the matter and consider the issue of limitation as one of the issue for consideration of the relief sought in the suit. Substantial question of law No.(2) 12. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The regular second appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are set aside. (iii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the matter on merits, including the law of limitation.