THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5470 of 2011 Dated 16th December, 2011 Between: Chinthapalli Kamalamma and others …Petitioners And Alugubelli Karunakar Reddy and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri J.Prabhakar Counsel for respondents: --- The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners, who are the defendants in O.S.No.3 of 2010, filed this revision petition feeling aggrieved by order, dated 18.11.2011, in I.A.No.1310 of 2010 in O.S.No.3 of 2010, on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The respondents have filed the above-mentioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 21.01.2006. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1310 of 2010 by pleading that the respondents have paid Rs.10,00,000/- when the agreement was entered into on 21.01.2006 and they were required to pay the balance sale consideration by 26.02.2006, and get the property registered in their favour. They have further pleaded that the respondents failed to perform their part of obligation leading to their giving a legal notice on 13.09.2007 and that as per the agreement, the limitation starts from 26.02.2006 and the same expired on 25.05.2009 and that the suit was filed in the year 2010. The respondents resisted the said application by asserting that the suit is within the period of limitation. The Court below has dismissed the application by holding that on the facts of the present case, the issue as to what is the starting point of limitation needs to be determined with reference to the rival pleadings and also the evidence to be adduced by both the parties and limitation being mixed question of fact and law, the suit cannot be dismissed by invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Having carefully considered the reasoning of the Court below, I am entirely in agreement with the same. As rightly held by the lower Court, the starting point of limitation needs to be determined with reference to the evidence to be adduced by both the parties. Hence, the Court below has rightly rejected the application for dismissing the suit at the threshold. For the above-mentioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.7744 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th December, 2011 VGB