1 cra.142.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Revision Application No. 142 of 2010 Shri. Subhash Tipanna Nelge and Anr. ..Applicants. v/s. Sau. Bhimabai Dagdu Kaspate and others. ..Respondents Mr. R. S. Apte i/b A. R. Gole, Advocate for the Applicants. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- JANUARY 18, 2011. P.C. By way of present Civil Revision Application, the Applicant has challenged the order dated 19th December, 2009 vide which the Application filed by the present Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was ex-facie barred by limitation came to be rejected. 2 cra.142.10.sxw 2. The Plaintiff has filed a suit regarding the declaration of perpetual injunction, cancellation of agreement for sale, power of attorney, sale deed etc. Shri Apte, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that sale deeds which are sought to be canceled in the present suit are all prior to ten years of filing of suit and as such upon reading the plaint itself the Learned Trial Court ought to have come to the finding that the suit was barred by limitation and as such rejected the plaint. 3. For deciding the Application under Order 7 Rule 11, what would be relevant is the averments made in the plaint. The cause of action will have to be determined as stated in the plaint. 4. Perusal of Paragraph 8 would reveal that there are specific averments as to how the suit is within limitation. Whether the averments made therein are correct or not, can be gone into after the written-statement is filed and that evidence is led by the parties in that behalf. 5. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction which has been exercised by the Trial Court has been exercised with illegality or 3 cra.142.10.sxw material irregularities so as to warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. Hence, rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)