IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3413 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.5.2010 Shila Devi and others ....Petitioners Versus Bhupinder Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.13670-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.R.No.3413 of 2010 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.4.2010. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order vide which their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been declined. They have pleaded that the suit be dismissed at the threshold because it is barred by limitation. The learned trial Court declined the prayer of the petitioners by observing that question of limitation is always a mixed question of law and fact. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ought to be decided by the C.R.No.3413 of 2010 (O&M) -2- trial Court at the very first instance by referring to the material on record. He further stated that all the objections taken by the petitioners should be met with by the trial Court. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as. Vinod Kumar and another v. Suresh Pal 1985(1) P.L.R. 596. I am afraid the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is without any merit. The trial Court has rightly observed that the question of limitation is dependent on the evidence as well which is likely to come on record during the course of trial. At the threshold the case of the plaintiffs/respondents cannot be thrown out as the determination of such an issue is dependent on the facts as well. There is thus no infirmity in the impugned order. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners lays down the rights of a pre-emptor and the manner it has to be dealt with. It does not deal with the questions which have been raised substantially in this petition. There is no doubt with the proposition which has been propounded in the said citation but the benefit of that can also be availed of by the petitioner after filing the written statement and testing the averments therein by supportive evidence. Dismissed. 21.5.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss