: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.153 OF 2009 Uma S. Mahadeokar ... Applicant V/s. Kiran B. Dhingra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Rahul Nerlekar for Applicant Mr.Girish Godbole a/w Mehul Shah, Bina Jariwala & Mahesh Pol for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 5, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been filed against the order passed on exhibit 17 refusing to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. 2. An agreement was entered into between the applicant and respondent No.2 for sale of the suit property. The applicant herein claims that the property was purchased for valuable consideration by registered sale deed on 25.9.1991. She also claims that her name is entered into the 7X12 extract and that she is in possession of the suit property. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 25.9.1991. The applicant preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for disposal of the suit on the ground of limitation. That application has been rejected and hence, the present civil revision application. : 2 : 3. Mr.Nerlekar, appearing for the applicant, submits that since the sale deed executed between the applicant and Respondent NO.2 was a registered sale deed it must be deemed that Respondent No.1 plaintiff had knowledge of the existence of the sale deed from the date of registration. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dilboo (Smt.)(dead) by Lrs & Ors. v/s. Dhanraji (Smt.) (Dead) & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 702 in support of this submission. He therefore submits that since there is a deemed date of knowledge which is 25.9.1991, the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation. He submits that although in the plaint, Respondent No.1 has averred that he obtained knowledge about the aforesaid sale only in 2008, in view of the judgment in Dilboo (Smt.)(dead) by Lrs & Ors. v/s. Dhanraji (Smt.)(Dead) & Ors. (supra), the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Mr.Godbole, on the other hand, submits that a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 only on the basis of the averments and statements contained therein. He points out that it is only if a perusal of the plaint discloses that the allegations contained therein taken in their entirety appear to be barred in law that a plaint can be rejected. To buttress this submission, he relies on the case of C.Natrajan v. Ashim Bai & Anr., (2007) 14 SCC 183. 5. In my opinion, the later judgment in the case of C. Natrajan (supra), delivered by a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court will hold the field as what is required to be considered is whether the averments in the plaint itself disclose that it is barred in law. The question whether the plaintiff and respondent No.1 became aware of the : 3 : existence of the sale deed only in 2008 just prior to filing of this suit or much earlier would be a fact which would have to be established on the basis of evidence. In Dilboo (Smt.)(dead) by Lrs & Ors. v/s. Dhanraji (Smt.)(Dead) & Ors., (supra), the Supreme Court was not considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 but whether the issue regarding limitation had been properly decided by the trial Court. This judgment in my view, would not apply while considering the application under 7 Rule 11. 6. Hence, the civil revision application dismissed. However, it is clarified that the issue of limitation will be decided by the trial Court after framing an issue in that regard and on the basis of the evidence led before it.