IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.112 of 2010 1. SIPATIA DEVI, Wife of Chandeshwar Yadav. 2. Chandeshwar Yadav, Son of Nathuni Rai. Both residents of Village-Agawan, Police Station-Naubatpur, District-Patna ...........Defendants/Petitioners. Versus VIKASH KUMAR, Son of Sri Sachita Singh resident of Village-Daudpur, Police Station Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna. ...........Plaintiff/Opposite Party. ----------- 6/ 04.02.2011 Heard the parties. 2. The defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 27.10.2009 passed by learned Munsif, Danapur in Title Suit No. 21 of 2008, whereby a petition filed on behalf of defendants-petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff-opposite party brought aforesaid Title suit for a decree for foreclosure of the mortgaged property due to non- payment of Rs.20,000/- taken by the defendants-petitioners from the plaintiff-opposite party. He submits that the suit itself was not maintainable under the provisions of Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 and was barred by Law of Limitation. However, he has candidly accepted that a written statement has already been filed on behalf of the 2 defendants, whereafter the petition under Order VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. was filed on their behalf, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole opposite party submits that the issue raised on behalf of defendants-petitioners can be considered only after recording of the evidence of the parties. Therefore, in his submission, the impugned order passed by learned court below is perfectly justifiable. 5. It is well established that for exercising powers under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is required to see only the averments made in the plaint and nothing beyond. On prima facie perusal of the plaint, if it is found that the suit is barred by law, then plaint has to be rejected. However, this court finds that the stage has now been changed in the present case in view of filing of written statement. The issue raised by the petitioners (defendants) can be taken up as a preliminary issue in terms of Order 14 Rule 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. 3 However, it would be open to the defendants-petitioners to make a prayer before the court below to take up the question of jurisdiction/limitation as the preliminary issue. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations and directions. No costs. Anjani/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )