THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP No.3078 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 3-6- 2009 passed in IA No.188 of 2009 in OS No.62 of 2003 by the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, dismissing the said application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) & (d) CPC, r/w. Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint in the above suit. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order passed by the Court below. 3. Facts stated are:- the petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit. The respondents herein who are plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,84,828/- said to have been given to the petitioner as dowry amount in the marriage. The petitioner filed the above application to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable, firstly that it is barred by limitation and secondly that the suit claim itself is unlawful as it is towards recovery of dowry amount which attracts the provisions of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and he could not raise the said pleas on earlier occasion by inadvertence and oversight. On the other hand, the respondents state that the matter has come to the stage of evidence and they led evidence to the effect that the petitioner has taken dowry amount in question and marked documents in support thereof. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in SALEEM BHAI vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 2003 SC 759) for the proposition that the Court can exercise the power under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit before registering the plaint or after issuing summons and at any time before the conclusion of the trial. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decisions of this Court in G.REUNKA vs. VM PAPARAO (AIR 1995 AP 130) & TN KHAMBATI vs. GOVT. OF AP (2004 (6) ALT 454 DB ) for the proposition that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which have to be proved during the trial and that without proper assessment of facts by conducting enquiry, rejection of plaint at threshold is not legal and a suit for recovery of dowry amount by a woman is maintainable. 5. The above application was filed by the petitioner on two grounds that the suit is barred by limitation and that the relief claimed is not lawful and no relief can be granted. This Court in G.Renuka’s case (supra) held that the suit seeking recovery of amount of dowry by woman is maintainable when there is failure of the receiver of dowry to transfer the same in favour of the woman. It is stated that petitioner who is defendant in the suit has filed his written statement, issues are framed and the plaintiffs have adduced evidence and the matter is coming up for cross examination of DW-1, under these circumstances the Court below rightly refused to reject the plaint. The decision in Saleem Bhai’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case as in this case written statement is filed and part of the evidence is led and when matters have reached this stage, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the suit is barred by limitation to reject the suit claim. Whether the suit is barred by limitation or not is a question of fact which shall have to be decided during the course of trial and the petitioner can as well adduce evidence in support of his case. 7. In the circumstances, the civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated: -10-2009 Nrg.