COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH-, BJLASPUR. Slngje Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Smt. Sidhi Bai, about 31 years, D/o Late Shri SadSiram, R/o Amraiya Chowk, Chingrajpara, BIIaspur, Dlstrict BJIaspur, Chhattisgarh Versus Aopiicant Defendarst No.1 Non-applicant Plaintiff No.1 Non-appSlcant Piaintlff No.2 Non-appiicant Pjaintiff No.3. 2. Smt. Sadhana Bais, Wd/o Subodh Singh BaEs, Ku. Surbhi Bal, about 15 years, D/o Subodh Singh Bais, Shaurabh Kumar BaEs, aged about 14 yers, S/o Subodh Slngh Bais. Non-applicants No.2. & 3 both are Vinors Through: Guardian their Mother Smt Sadhan Bals . Non-'applicants No, 1 to 3 R/o Llthora,' Tahsll Jatara, Dlstrict Tikamgarh (IVI»P.) Through Shri Uday Slngh, S/o Salikram, aged about 40 years, R/.o Kapll Nagar, Bilaspur, District BIiaspur, Chhattisgarh DJIip Kurnar Gupta, aged 37 years, S/o Roopram Gupta, R/o Road, Tsiak Nagar, Near Pratap Bhawan,BJ!aspur, TahsiE & District - Bllaspur, Chhattisgarh of Chhattlsgarh, Through: DEstrict Magistrate, BJIaspur, District Biiaspur (CG) ijvil 115 of the Code of Civil Procedyre, Non-applicant No.3 5. Present: Shri Rafensh Kumar Agrawai, counsel for the applicant. Shri Akhjj Agrawaj, PL for State, ORAL (Passed on 25.02.2008) Heard .Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrav^ai, learned counsei for the applicant (2) This civli revlsion is being disposed of' at the stage of admission without notice to the other parties. (3) On 12.2.2CX37 one Subodh Singh Bais had fiied the suit for specific performance of contract dated 29.6.1991. After his death, the respondents/piaintiffs No.1, 2 and 3 who . are the legal representatives of Subodh Singh Bats were brought on record. An appiication was fiied by the appiicant/defendant No.1 that the sult not having been instituted wit'hin 3 yea.rs frorn the dat.e of agreement, was barred by iimitation and, therefore, the pialnt was !iabEe fo be rejected under Order 7 Rule 1 1 of the C.P.C. (4) By the order dated 21.1.2008 impugned in this revislon, the Eearned i3t AddltionaE District Judge, .Biiaspur disnilssed the sald appiication on the sole ground that the ground taken by defendant No.1 in the application under Order 7 Ruie 11 of the C.P.C. was not covered under the provisons of Order 7 Ruie 11 of the C.P.C. !t was aiso observed tEiat an issue had already been framed regarding question of limitaiton, which would be decided recording of evldence ofthe parties. (5) The impugned order is contrary to law. Under Order 7 Ruie 11 (d) of the C.P.C., tne plaint Is 'liabie to be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the piaint to be barred by any law. Therefore, the Jearned Ist Addltlonal District Judge ought have applled its mind to the averments in the piaint and shouid have recorded a speclflc finding whether from the in the plaint, taken on Its face vaiue, the suit was barred by'iimjtatlon or not. (6) The civil reivlson is aiiowed. The impugned order dated 21/01/2008, being contrary to law is set aside. The learned ! Additionai District Jud.ge, Biiaspur shail, after hearing parties record a finding whether on the basis of the averments in the plaint the suit is barred by ilmitaiton. or not and thereafter determine/the appilcation under Order 7 Rute 1 1 of the C.P.C on merit. (7) in view of the above, i.A. No.1 for of stay aiso stands dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh 1 Judge ^r