1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Civil Revision application no.10/2011 1. Shri Alexio Manuel Francisco Rudolfo De Silva, aged 75 years, married and his wife 2. Mrs. Maria Visitacao de Cruz D'Silva aged 68 years, both no.1 and 2 are residents of House no.333, Godinho Waddo, Majorda, Salcete Goa. …. Petitioners/Applicants V e r s u s Shri Amedio Joseph Wilson Noronha Son of Teofilo Noronha, Aged 58 years, resident of Nanu Retreat, Thonvaddo, Betalbatim, Salcete Goa. … Respondent/Original Plaintiff. Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. I. Agha, Advocate for Respondent. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 28th June, 2011. ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr. Kakodkar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Agha, learned counsel for respondent . 2 2. By this revision application, the petitioners take exception to the order dated 10/8/2010 by which an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code has been rejected by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, in Regular Civil Suit no.172/2009/F. 3. According to Mr. Kakodkar since the plaintiff in the above suit had information about the earlier suit filed against his parents, the suit filed on 3/8/2009 was barred by limitation and as such, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. According to Mr. Kakodkar, the mere fact that the plaintiff took inspection of the file on 3/8/2006 and came to know about the earlier suit would not extend the period of limitation for filing the second suit. 4. Mr. Agha, learned counsel for the respondent placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the 3 case of Ningawwa Vs. Byrappa Shiddappa Hirekarabar and others, AIR 1968 SC 956 submitted that the mere fact that the plaintiff had information about the earlier suit by itself would not be sufficient ground to hold that the period of limitation had begun for filing the second suit for declaration. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. The Trial Court has held that although the plaintiff had information about the earlier suit filed on 23/7/2006, he came to know about the same only when he took inspection of the file on 3/8/2006 and as such, the suit filed on 3/8/2009 was not barred by limitation. The finding given by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or without jurisdiction. Hence, no case 4 is made out for interference with the impugned order and the revision is dismissed. Needless to mention that dismissal of this application would not come in the way of the Trial Court from deciding the issue of limitation on merits in the suit. Interim relief granted on 30/3/2011 stands vacated. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 13th July, 2011 at 10.30 a.m. 6. Writ Petition stands disposed of. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-