IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.777 of 2007 Dayaram Yadav Versus Smt.Girija Devi & Ors ----------- 05. 16.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. By the impugned order, the learned court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint. The defendants/petitioner has filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11C.P.C. stating therein mainly that the sale deeds executed in the year 1995 have been challenged by filing the suit in the year 2003 and therefore the bar of limitation will be attracted. It has also been asserted that proper court fee has not been paid and cause of action has also not been stated besides the purchase by the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of Hindu Law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the learned court below has wrongly held that the suit is not barred by limitation. He has further urged that gross illegality has been committed in holding that since the plaintiff has filed a petition for amendment for incorporating in the plaint the statement regarding his acquiring knowledge of the 2 sale deed which is pending, the suit cannot be held to be not barred under the provisions under Article 53 of the Limitation Act. It has been also urged that the bar of limitation cannot be avoided by seeking amendment in the plaint. From the perusal of the plaint (Annexure-1 to the revision application), it appears that the reliefs which have been prayed, relating to the sale deeds are only declaratory in nature and no relief for canceling or setting aside the sale deeds has been sought for. During the course of submission, nothing could be pointed out from the averments of the plaint to establish that the right to sue had accrued to the plaintiff three years prior to the filing of the suit. The objection under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. is to be decided only on the basis of the averments made in the plaint. As such there is no force in the submission that the plaint is liable to be rejected as the suit is barred by limitation. The conclusion arrived by the learned curt below is correct. In that view of the matter, there does not appear any merit in this revision application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)