IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2011 M/S. URBAN CONCEPT REP BY ITS PARTNER MR. AMIT M. SUKTANKAR AND 2 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus MRS. MARIA ZITA AFANSO AND ANR., ... Respondents Mrs. A. A. Agni,advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.B. Da Costa, Senior Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 11th January, 2011 P.C : Heard Mrs. Agni, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this revision application, the petitioners challenge order dated 6/10/2010 passed in Civil Suit No.6/09/A by which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed. 4. The respondent nos.1 and 2 filed the above referred suit against the petitioners and some other defendants seeking relief of declaration. The petitioners are defendant nos.21,22 and 23 in the above referred Special Civil Suit no.6/09/A filed by the respondents in the court of Civil Judge,Senior Division, Panaji. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs and by the impugned order the Trial Judge had dismissed the application. 5. The only point urged by Mrs. Agni in support of the revision application is that although it was specifically the case of the petitioners in the application that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation and, as such the plaint was liable to be rejected,the Trial Court in the impugned order has not dealt with the said issue which the Trial Court was required to do. She therefore submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Da Costa,learned Senior Counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that the learned Trial judge has not dealt with the issue which was raised before it. He further submitted that the plaintiffs would file an application for amendment before the trial court. 7. I find that the concession made by the Mr. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel deserves to be accepted. Perusal of impugned order discloses that the learned Trial Judge has nowhere dealt with the issue raised by the plaintiffs/defendant nos.21 to 23 which was required to be decided while deciding the application field under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. On this point alone the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The Trial Court shall decide the application dated 2/12/2009 file by the petitioners in the above referred suit after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 9. The civil revision application stands disposed of. 10. In view of the disposal of the revision application the civil application no.6 of 2011 also stands disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ap/-