IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH (9th) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3403 of 2010 Between: Mittapalli Shoba Rani … Petitioner And: Durvasula Venugopal & 4 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3403 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 12.07.2010 in IA No.683 of 2010 in OS No.79 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3 . The first respondent herein filed suit for recovery of money said to be due on a pronote. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement disputing the suit claim and denying her liability. It is also pleaded by the defendant that the suit is barred by limitation. 4. The defendant filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court dismissed the said application observing that the plea of limitation raised in the written statement is mixed question of fact and law and so, it is not safe to reject the plaint. 5 . It is to be noted that the trial of the suit already commenced and the matter is at the stage of defendant’s evidence. As rightly observed by the trial Court, when the ground of rejection is one of limitation, which is found to be mixed question of fact and law, the rejection of the plaint at the stage when the trial is in progress, is not called for. It is however, open to the trial Court to decide the question of maintainability of the suit on the ground of bar of limitation, as a preliminary issue. The impugned order dismissing the application seeking rejection of the plaint, does not therefore, call for any interference by this Court. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.02.2011 bss