IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1763 of 2006 1. CHANDRAMA RAI, 2. Jhulan Rai and 3. Lallan Rai, all sons of late Lakhedu Rai, all R/o Village – Baghini, P.S. Molhania, District – Kaimur ………………. Defendants - Petitioners. Versus 1. SATYA NARAIN TIWARY, S/o Late Panpati Tiwary, 2. Muralidhar Tiwary, S/o Late Tribhuwan Tiwary, 3. Meghbaran Tiwary, S/o Late Tribhuwan Tiwary, 4. Sonamati Kuer, W/o Late Sridhar Tiwary, 5. Naintara Kuer, W/o Late Sridhar Tiwary, and 6. Muna, Minor son of Late Sridhar Tiwary, U/G of Naintara Kuer, mother and natural guardian,All R/o Village– Baghini,P.S. Mohania,District – Kaimur … Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. ----------- 5. 17.09.2009. Heard Mr. Rewati Kant Raman, learned counsel for the petitioners. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 27.06.2006 passed by the Munsif, Bhabhua in Title Suit No. 12/2006, whereby the petition filed on behalf of the defendants – petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11(d) and under Sections 10, 11, 12 & 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for returning the plaint to the plaintiffs by recalling the orders dated 31.01.2006, 14.02.2006 and 24.02.2006 and if the plaintiffs failed to withdraw the plaint, then the same be rejected by the court, was rejected. The defendants – petitioners have filed a composite petition under several provisions as contained in Code of Civil Procedure such as Sections 10, 11, 12, 151, 2 Order VII Rule 10, 11, 12 with a prayer to recall the earlier order dated 31.01.2006, 14.02.2006 and 24.02.2006 and to return the plaint to the plaintiffs or reject the same. The plaintiffs – opposite parties have filed Title Suit No. 12/2006 for permanent injunction against the defendants – petitioners. The court below after hearing the parties has recorded the finding that for the reason of proceeding under Code of Criminal Procedure, a title suit, whereby permanent injunction has been sought for, cannot be held to be non-maintainable and, thus, there was no question of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So far question of limitation is concerned, it has held that the same being mixed question of facts and law, is to be decided at the time of trial of the case. In the above backdrop of the matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. In the result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )