IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4898 OF 2010 Between: Gudla Srinivas …Petitioner A n d Gaddam Bhoomaiah and three others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4898 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 24-09-2010 in I.A.No.307 of 2010 in O.S.No.73 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein (D-4) under Order VII Rule 11CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit against respondents 2 to 4/D-1 to D-3 and petitioner/D-4 for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 20.12.2007 and for permanent injunction restraining D-4 from making constructions in the suit property on the ground that the said sale deed was obtained by playing fraud and contending that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land, having purchased the same from the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 26.05.1998 for a sale consideration of Rs.31,300/- and ever since he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Though the sale deed was executed on 26.05.1998, the deed was pending registration before the Sub-Registrar, Sircilla till 2007 and after collecting the deficit stamp duty from D-4, the registered sale deed was delivered to the defendant with registration No.5536 of 2007. The defendant further pleaded in the written statement that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act which prescribed the period of limitation as three years for cancellation of the document. The defendant has raised several other contentions in the written statement. 4. The defendant filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit is barred by law i.e., under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the same by filing a counter contending that Article 59 has no application, as the document was not registered and was kept pending for more than 11 years for registration and cause of action arose only after the document was registered, but not earlier. It is not disputed that the document was registered on 20.12.2007 about nine years after it was executed and during the said period it was lying in the Sub-Registrar’s office, pending registration. The suit was filed on 22.10.2009 i.e., within three years from the date of registration. The plaintiff would, therefore, contend that the suit is within time. 5. The plaintiff seeks cancellation of the document on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation and according to him he acquired knowledge of the same only after registration, but not before. In the plaint also, the cause of action is sated to have arisen on 20.12.2007 on which date, the Sub-Registrar effected registration. According to the plaintiff, the question of seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed arises only when the sale deed is duly registered, but not at any earlier point of time. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is the date of document which has to be taken into consideration but not the date of registration. 7. Article 59 of the Limitation Act states that the period of limitation of three years would commence from the date on which the plaintiff first become known to him. Therefore, it is the date on which the plaintiff acquired knowledge for the first time regarding the alleged fraud, which is relevant and from that date the period of three years starts to run. The question as to when exactly the plaintiff came to know of the alleged fraud and misrepresentation, is a matter to be considered on evidence. According to the plaintiff, he came to know of the fraud only after the document was registered in the year 2007. The petitioner/defendant, on the other hand, would contend that presentation of the document was within the knowledge of the plaintiff and no steps were taken within three years of its execution. It is, therefore, a question of fact to be decided on evidence as to when the plaintiff could have acquired knowledge of the alleged fraud for the first time. The question as to whether or not the suit is barred by limitation is, therefore, a mixed question of fact and law in the facts and circumstances of the present case. When that is so, the question of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at the threshold stage on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation does not arise. The defendant has already taken the said plea of bar of limitation in the written statement along with various other pleas and it is open for him to raise the said contention at an appropriate stage in the course of trial and the trial Court shall deal with the same on its merits without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 8. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/D-4, seeking rejection of the plaint, does not call for any interference. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J November, 2011 Lrkm.