1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 109/2010 ( NATHA LAXMAN JODNAR AND ANR [Civil] V/S BABASAHEB GANPAT CHORMALE -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. Vivek Dhage, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Ghuge, Adv., h/f Mr. S.S.Jadhavar, Adv., for respondent/sole. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:23/11/2010 1. In RCS No.196/1994, below Exh.78, defendant moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure Code for rejecting the plaint. 2. The suit is for specific performance of contract. Learned Counsel for the petitioner informs, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and the Court has not considered this aspect. 3. The learned Judge has observed 2 that the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of allegations made by the defendants in the written statement. In an application for rejection of the plaint, the Court has to read entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses cause of action and it is exercising powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.. This was referred by the learned Judge in paragraph 15 in tune with the directions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1828 ( Mayar (H.K.) Ltd Vs. Owners & Parties). 4. Needless to add, the learned Judge will, on pleadings of the parties shall frame issue, raising point of limitation as the defendant has canvassed. I do not see any infirmity in the order under challenge. Civil Revision Application lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/109-10cra