CRP 466/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. A.R. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners, who are the defendants in Title Suit No.110/2009, by th e present application sought to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in challenging the order dated 22.09.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff, Tezpur, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has ref used to decide the question of limitation as raised by the petitioners and conse quently reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, as the question of l imitation is mixed question of facts and law, which is required to be decided af ter recording the evidence of the parties. Perusal of the order dated 22.09.2010 reveals that the learned Trial Cou rt has decided to go to the said issue at the appropriate stage by refusing to d ecide the question of limitation at the initial stage and refusing to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC at that stage, as the question of limit ation is a mixed question of facts and law. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error to interfer e with the order dated 22.09.2010, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC and hence the same is rejected. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 25.04.2011. The revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.