C.R.No.2577 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2577 of 2011 Date of Order: 20.4.2011 Sohan Lal .....Petitioner Vs. Swami Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Defendant No.4-petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangrur whereby the application of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint being time barred has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of one Hari Sarup, who was the original owner of the suit land, which had been mortgaged by him. It is further submitted that said Hari Sarup had sold his ownership rights to some of the co-defendants of the petitioner-defendant No.4 by way of collusive decrees and the said defendants had further sold part of the land to the petitioner-defendant No.4. In the suit for possession by way of redemption of the mortgage and declaration that the subsequent collusive decree and sale deeds etc are null and void and not binding on the rights of the Lrs of the original owner-Hari Sarup, defendant No.4 and other defendants filed an application stating that C.R.No.2577 of 2011 #2# the plaintiffs were throughout aware of the collusive decrees and the subsequent sale deeds since they were party to the other suit filed by other persons as well as by the plaintiffs themselves and, therefore, the suit for declaration was barred by law of limitation. It is contended that the whole of the approach adopted by the learned trial Court is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the pleadings, I am not persuaded to accept the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner-defendant No.4. In my view, the learned trial Court after relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Ramesh B. Desai & Ors v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors 2006(3) Civil Court Cases, 577 has rightly observed that the issue of limitation being mixed question of fact and law can only be decided after adducing respective evidence and the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC do not envisage entertaining of such prayer. No ground is made out to interfere. Dismissed. April 20, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE