Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135542 Court No. - 9 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 47 of 2023 Revisionist :- Waqf Haji Maula Baksha Fazal Hussain Mohammad Shah Opposite Party :- Smt. Kamlawati And 8 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Manish Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arvind Srivastava,Shravan Kumar Pandey,Shyam Narain Pandey Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 28.10.2022 passed by U.P. Waqf Tribunal rejecting the plaint filed by the revisionist in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the suit/ application was moved by the petitioner for declaring the plaintiff-applicant to be the owner of the property in dispute ignoring the sale deeds executed on 29.11.1979 as well as 11.05.1971 being void. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents by filing written statement denying the plaint averments. An application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. was filed by defendants on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff-revisionist was barred by Limitation Act, 1963. Secondly, that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff from the perusal of the plaint and the property in dispute has not been notified as a Waqf property. The revisionist filed objections to the said application. The U.P. Waqf Tribunal by order dated 28.10.2022 allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. filed by defendants and rejected the plaint. Hence the present revision. 3. It has been contended by Sri Manish Tandon, counsel for the revisionist that court below has erroneously allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. on the ground of limitation, as the plaintiff has explained the reason for not filing the suit earlier. According to the counsel for the revisionist plaintiff came to know about the said sale deeds on 19.09.2015 when the revisionist got the copy of the sale deeds from the Registry department. Averment in this regard has been made in paragraph Nos. 6 and 8 of the plaint/application. 4. Per contra, Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner had knowledge of the said sale deeds since beginning and the averments in the plaint in this regard are just a result of clever drafting to avoid the bar of limitation. 5. Counsel for the revisionist relied upon Rule 6 of Order VII of C.P.C. which provides that where a suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by law of limitation, the plaint shall show the grounds upon which exemption from such law is claimed and according to the counsel for the revisionist, from pleadings in paragraph No. 6 of the plaint/ application, it is apparent that such pleading has been made by the plaintiff. 6. Once the exemption as contemplated in Rule 6 of Order VII of C.P.C. has been made by the plaintiff, the said question has to be decided on the basis of evidence lead by the parties and the pleadings cannot be rejected as such. Normally, the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, especially in the present case, when the plaintiff-revisionist has sought exemption for filing the suit by mentioning the date of knowledge on which he came to know about the sale deeds. This question cannot be said to be a pure question of law as evidence will be required by both the parties to prove their case. 7. Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate also contended that the suit was otherwise not maintainable as the Waqf was never registered. 8. In reply to the said contention, counsel for the revisionist has submitted that this question was not considered by the court below while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. and it was left open subject to evidence by the court below itself. 9. In my view, suit/application filed by petitioner though on the face of it appears to be barred by limitation but in view of the averments made in paragraph No. 6 of the application, question of exemption has to be decided by the court below after taking evidence of the both the parties and therefore, the suit cannot be rejected in limine in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. 10. Consequently, the revision is allowed and order dated 28.10.2022 passed by U.P. Waqf Tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad