--1-- C.M.P. No. 97 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 97 of 2025 ---- 1. Raju Kumar Gupta, aged about 37 years 2. Prince Kumar, aged about 34 years Both sons of Late Binod Prasad, Resident of Village – Japla Dharhara, PO – Japla, PS – Hussainabad, District – Palamau .... Petitioners -- Versus -- 1. Mohar Devi, wife of Late Bhagwat Prasad 2. Shyam Narayan Prasad, son of Late Bhagwat Prasad 3. Ravi Shankar Prasad, son of Late Bhagwat Prasad 4. Sunil Kumar, son of Late Bhagwat Prasad 5. Satish Kumar, son of Late Bhagwat Prasad 6. Santosh Kumar, son of Late Bhagwat Prasad 7. Rambha Devi, wife of Shri Awadesh Prasad All are resident of village – Japla Dharhara, PO – Japla, PS – Hussainabad, District - Palamau .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Harsh Tiwary, Advocate For the O.Ps :- ---- 04/04.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 29.07.2024 whereby the petition filed under Order – VII Rule – 11 of the CPC in Original Suit No.109 of 2023 by the petitioners has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on the grounds of court fee, limitation and maintainability the said --2-- C.M.P. No. 97 of 2025 petition was filed and the learned Court has been pleased to reject the same which is not in spirit of Order - VII Rule - 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The Court has gone through the petition filed before the learned Court and finds that averment has been made about the sufficient court fee, limitation and undue harassment to the petitioners. On this ground, the said suit has been prayed to be rejected. 5. The learned Court has found that all these are mix questions of fact and law and in view of that he has been pleased to dismiss the said petition. Whether the sufficient court fee is there or not that can be agitated in the suit by way of framing of an issue. 6. It is well settled that so far limitation is concerned, that is a mix question of fact and law that can be considered after providing the opportunity of leading evidence to both the sides. If such a situation was there, the learned Court has rightly passed the said order. No interference is required, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/