ORDER : N.Senthilkumar, J. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.20 of 2019, dated 01.06.2020. 2. The first respondent, as plaintiff, has filed the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2019 before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai, for declaration of 1/4 share of the suit schedule property. During the progression of the suit, the Revision Petitioner/5 th defendant had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the subject matter of the suit was already decided in O.S.No.54 of 1951 and the Court fee paid in the present suit is under valued, as the Court fee was paid, as if it is a suit for partition. 3. The trial Court upon examining the arguments of the Revision Petitioner had taken note of the findings given in O.S.No.54 of 1951 that Subramaniya Raja being the younger son cannot seek partition of the impartible Zamin properties and who was awarded a maintenance of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, as the Zameen properties were partitioned among the legal heirs of Shanmuga Raja and thereafter, the said properties were sold by them. As the suit for partition was raised by the first respondent/plaintiff, which wayback for more than 100 years and taking note of the objections raised by the Revision Petitioner with regard to deficit Court fee as per Section 37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1955, the trial Court had dismissed the same by recording that these facts in O.S.No.54 of 1951 on the file of Subordinate Court, Sivagangai has to be decided only on a full fledged trial. As regards to deficit of Court fee, Section 149 of CPC enables the first respondent/plaintiff to make an application and on convincing reasons, it is the discretion of the Court to condone the deficit of Court fee and the suit cannot be disposed of on the ground that there is a deficit Court fee. On the said grounds, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed to reject the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the fifth defendant in the suit. 4. On the said grounds, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed to reject the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the fifth defendant in the suit. 4. Ms.Swathini, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the trial Court has not examined properly the 100 years of Zamin properties, which has been partitioned among the family members and the partition was not considered by the trial Court. When the trial Court has not given any reasons on the arguments advanced on the side of the Revision Petitioner before the trail Court, the order passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with law. 5. In support of the above arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLline SC 3844 , between Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others vs Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows: “ 26. At this juncture, we wish to observe that we are not unmindful of the position of law that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question of rejecting the plaint on that score has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record. However, in cases like this, where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the trial Court. We again place it on record that this is not a case where any forgery or fabrication is committed which had recently come to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Rather, the plaintiff and his predecessors did not take any steps to assert their title and rights in time. The alleged cause of action is also found to be creation of fiction. However, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The High Court also erred in affirming the same, keeping the question of limitation open to be considered by the trial Court after considering the evidence along with other issues, without deciding the core issue on the basis of the averments made by the Respondent No. 1 in the Plaint as mandated by Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The High Court also erred in affirming the same, keeping the question of limitation open to be considered by the trial Court after considering the evidence along with other issues, without deciding the core issue on the basis of the averments made by the Respondent No. 1 in the Plaint as mandated by Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is only for the Courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex facie appears to be a clear abuse of process. The Courts by being reluctant only cause more harm to the defendants by forcing them to undergo the ordeal of leading evidence. Therefore, we hold that the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold.” 6. When a serious dispute is raised with regard to the multiplicity of proceedings and when the trial Court had observed that there are complex issues involved and disputed question of facts, which has to be analysed based on the pleadings and also on the documents which are filed along with the plaint, this Court cannot brush aside the documents which are enclosed in the plaint and it is for the trial Court to examine the plaint averments and the documents filed by the respondent herein. 7. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2018) 6 SCC 422 between Chhotanben and another vs Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and others , with regard to the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation, held as follows: “ 15. What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane. It is common ground that the registered sale deed is dated 18-10-1996. The limitation to challenge the registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from the date on which the sale deed was registered. Only the averments in the plaint are germane. It is common ground that the registered sale deed is dated 18-10-1996. The limitation to challenge the registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from the date on which the sale deed was registered. However, the specific case of the appellant- plaintiffs is that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding execution of such sale deed by their brothers, original Defendants 1 and 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendants 3 to 6. They acquired that knowledge on 26-12-2012 and immediately took steps to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and two days prior to the filing of the suit, had approached their brothers (original Defendants 1 and 2) calling upon them to stop interfering with their possession and to partition the property and provide exclusive possession of half (½) portion of the land so designated towards their share. However, when they realised that the original Defendants 1 and 2 would not pay any heed to their request, they had no other option but to approach the court of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom. According to the appellants, the suit has been filed within time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed. In this context, the trial court opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept the application filed by Respondent 1-Defendant 5 for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). That view commends to us.” 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2019) 4 SCC 367 between Pawan Kumar vs Babulal and others , had held as follows: “ 13. In the present case, the controversy has arisen in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Whether the matter comes within the purview of Section 4(3) of the Act is an aspect which must be gone into on the strength of the evidence on record. Going by the averments in the plaint, the question whether the plea raised by the appellant is barred under Section 4 of the Act or not could not have been the subject-matter of assessment at the stage when application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was taken up for consideration. Going by the averments in the plaint, the question whether the plea raised by the appellant is barred under Section 4 of the Act or not could not have been the subject-matter of assessment at the stage when application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was taken up for consideration. The matter required fuller and final consideration after the evidence was led by the parties. It cannot be said that the plea of the appellant as raised on the face of it, was barred under the Act. The approach must be to proceed on a demurrer and see whether accepting the averments in the plaint the suit is barred by any law or not. We may quote the following observations of this Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn. [Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn., (2005) 7 SCC 510 ] : (SCC p. 515, para 10) “10. Clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 7 speaks of suit, as appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 applies in those cases only where the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law in force.” 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 between Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead and others held as follows: “ 28. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh [State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1082] held that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff, and whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words “right to sue” mean the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order 7 Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.” 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2021) 17 SCC 100 between Salim D.Agboatwala and others vs Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and others , had held as follows: “11. As observed by this Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy [P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy, (2015) 8 SCC 331 : (2015) 4 SCC (Civ) 100] , the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action at the threshold. Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation. When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the same has to be accepted at the stage of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11.” 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 521 between Ramisetty Venkatanna and another vs Nasyam Jamal Saheb and others , had held as follows: “ 30. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia (supra) is concerned, again there cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down by this Court that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule XI, mainly the averments in the plaint only are required to be considered and not the averments in the written statement. However, on considering the averments in the plaint as they are, we are of the opinion that the plaint is ought to have been rejected being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation and it is a clear case of clever drafting.” 12. However, on considering the averments in the plaint as they are, we are of the opinion that the plaint is ought to have been rejected being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation and it is a clear case of clever drafting.” 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2008) 12 SCC 661 in the case of Kamala and others vs K.T.Eshwara Sa and others , had held as follows: “ 21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can be invoked at different stages and under different provisions of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2 is another. 22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order under the said provision. 23. The principles of res judicata, when attracted, would bar another suit in view of Section 12 of the Code. The question involving a mixed question of law and fact which may require not only examination of the plaint but also other evidence and the order passed in the earlier suit may be taken up either as a preliminary issue or at the final hearing, but, the said question cannot be determined at that stage.” 13. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.