IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1068 of 2007 ……. 1. Ramashray Singh, son of late Nauzadik Singh 2. Jitendra Kumar 3. Ranjay Kumar 4. Birendra Kumar alias Pappu Kumar Sons of Ramashray Singh 5. Shanti Dedvi, wife of Ramashray Singh, All residents of village Pathahi, P.S. Punpun, Post Office Basuhar, District Patna. ……Defendants 2nd Party-Petitioners. Versus 1. Brij Bihari Singh 2. Bijay Bihari Singh Both sons of late Shatrughan Singh 3. Surendra Bihari Singh 4. Upendra Bihari Singh 5. Jitendra Bihari Singh All sons of late Bipin Bihari Singh All residents of village Pathahi, P.S. Punpun, P.O. Basuhar, District Patna, at present village Dharhara, P.S. Punpun,P.O. Basuhar, District Patna. … …Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. 6. Mostt. Jankuri Devi, wife of late Mahendra Pd. Singh 7. Nagendra Singh 8. Ram Binay Singh Sons of late Mahendra Prasad Singh All residents of village Doripur, P.S. Masaurhi, P.O. Masaurhi, District Patna. 9. Smt. Kamlata Devi, daughter of late Mahendra Pd. Singh , and wife of Satish Kumar Singh, resident of village Kamalapur, P.S. Punpun, P.O. Barah, District Patna, at present village Parthoo, P.O. Parthoo, P.S. Pipra, District Patna. 10. Rubi Devi, daughter of late Mahendra Prasad Singh and wife of Baldeo Singh, resident of village Tulsichak, P.O. Gangachak, P.S. Masaurhi, District Patna. 11. Arti Devi alias Sheela Devi, alias Babli, daughter of late Mahendra Prasad Singh and wife of Sri Vijay Pratap Singh alias Mukhia Singh, resident of Village Manoharpur Decorators shops, P.O. and P.S. Bettiah, Distt. West Champaran, Bettiah, at present vildlage and P.O. Mangalpur (Gudaria ),P.S. Nautan, District West Champaran (Bettiah). 12. Savita Devi alias Shsolata, daughter of late Mahendra Pd. Singh, and wife of Raj Niranjan Singh, resident of village and post Office Jarkha, P.S. Sigori, District Patna. ……Defendants Ist Party-Opp. Parties. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shyam Kishore Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : None. ----------- 05/ 03.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendants second party-petitioners challenging order dated 02.04.2007, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Patna dismissed their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint of Title Suit No. 424 of 2003 as being barred by law of limitation. 3. The aforesaid title suit was filed by plaintiffs- opposite parties first set for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession and in case they are found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit for recovery of possession and also for ad interim injunction, cost and any other relief available. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application dated 25.01.2004 stating that they have been dispossessed from the suit land by defendants no. 8 to 12, whereafter, they also paid ad valorem court fee for the relief of recovery of possession. Much thereafter, the aforesaid defendant 2nd party filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 29.11.2006 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that no ad valorem court fee had been paid and the suit was barred by limitation. 5. The learned court below after considering the respective claims of the parties has rejected the said application by its impugned order holding that the plaintiffs have already filed the ad valorem court fee for the relief of recovery of possession and in the facts and circumstances of this case the question of limitation 3 being a mixed question of law and fact evidence has to be led in that regard and only thereafter such matter could be decided. This order has been challenged by the defendants second party in the instant civil revision. 6. It transpires that after pleadings were complete, issues were framed and evidence was going on with respect to all the issues involved in the suit including the issue of limitation. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional 1 error therein. 7. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the court below to decide the suit on all the issues framed including the issue of limitation expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )