ORDER : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are rustic villagers with limited means, who are barely able to manage their day-to-day livelihood, and on account of acute financial constraints they were unable to approach this Hon’ble Court within the prescribed period; it is further submitted that the applicants are not conversant with legal procedures and were unaware of the intricacies of judicial proceedings, and for these bona fide and unavoidable reasons, an unintentional delay of 303 days has occurred in filing the present revision, which is neither deliberate nor intentional but solely attributable to circumstances beyond their control. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 1/2025 is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present revision has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned 10th Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 223A/2023, whereby the application filed by the applicants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the trial Court, holding that the grounds raised by the applicants—namely that the suit is barred by limitation, that the plaint has not been properly valued and requisite court fees have not been paid, that there is no cause of action, and that the suit is hit by the principles of res judicata—are matters which require adjudication during the course of trial and cannot be decided at the threshold while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, on the face of the record, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and is further vitiated on account of undervaluation, as the plaintiff has failed to correctly value the suit and to pay the requisite court fees in accordance with law. It is contended that no valid or subsisting cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff for filing the present suit and that the same is also expressly hit by the principles of res judicata, the issues having already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings between the parties. It is contended that no valid or subsisting cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff for filing the present suit and that the same is also expressly hit by the principles of res judicata, the issues having already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of these patent legal bars, the plaint was liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the trial Court has committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the said application on the erroneous premise that the issues involved are disputed questions of fact which can be decided only during the course of trial, despite the fact that the defects pointed out are apparent from the plaint itself 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that where, on a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is evident that the suit is prima facie barred by limitation, discloses no legally sustainable cause of action, and is also hit by the principles of res judicata, the Court is under a bounden duty to reject or dismiss the suit at the very threshold, at the initial stage itself, without relegating the parties to a full-fledged trial or awaiting the recording of evidence, as continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in unnecessary harassment and wastage of valuable judicial time. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the trial Court has passed a well reasoned order which is not required to be interfered with. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. From a bare and careful perusal of the record as well as the plaint, it clearly emerges that the suit has been instituted seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, and grant of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he is the lawful title holder of the suit land; however, according to his own averments, the defendants have illegally and forcibly taken possession thereof without any semblance of right or authority. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he is the lawful title holder of the suit land; however, according to his own averments, the defendants have illegally and forcibly taken possession thereof without any semblance of right or authority. It further transpires from the plaint that the alleged cause of action is stated to have arisen on 04.07.2021, on which date the defendants are said to have erected an iron fencing over the suit property, thereby asserting unlawful possession and interfering with the plaintiff’s alleged rights. On the basis of the said assertions, the plaintiff claims to have been constrained to file the present suit seeking appropriate declaratory and injunctive reliefs along with restoration of possession. 10. The law governing the consideration and disposal of an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well settled and no longer res integra, inasmuch as, while adjudicating such an application, the Court is required to confine its scrutiny strictly to the averments made in the plaint alone and to examine whether, on a plain and meaningful reading thereof, the suit is liable to be rejected on any of the grounds enumerated under the said provision; at this preliminary stage, the defense set up by the defendants, whether in the written statement or in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, is wholly irrelevant and cannot be taken into consideration, as the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the plaint, as well as the merits of the defense, are matters to be tested only during the course of trial on the basis of evidence. 11. So far as the objections relating to limitation, existence or otherwise of cause of action, proper valuation of the suit, sufficiency and affixation of court fees, and the plea of res judicata are concerned, it is well settled that such issues generally involve mixed questions of law and fact which cannot be conclusively determined at the threshold stage; rather, they require a detailed examination of pleadings, evidence and surrounding circumstances, and therefore are liable to be adjudicated only during the course of trial. At the stage of consideration of an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is confined strictly to the averments made in the plaint alone and cannot embark upon a roving inquiry or adjudicate disputed questions, nor can it test the veracity of the plaintiff’s claim by reference to the defence or extraneous material. Consequently, unless from a plain and meaningful reading of the plaint itself it is manifest that the suit is barred by law, undervalued, or hit by any statutory prohibition, the rejection of the plaint at the initial stage is unwarranted, and such objections are appropriately left open to be decided after the parties have led evidence during trial. 12. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has unequivocally cautioned the Courts that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only the averments contained in the plaint are required to be examined and no reliance can be placed upon the defence or extraneous material. Although the learned counsel for the applicants has placed several documents before this Court in support of her contention that the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata, the consideration and appreciation of such documents necessarily involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the threshold stage. These documents are required to be examined by the trial Court at the appropriate stage, after framing the relevant issues and after affording the parties an opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence, so as to enable a proper and effective adjudication of the suit in accordance with law. 13. So far as limitation part is concerned limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which requires complete adjudication. The contention in respect of non-availability of cause of action is concerned the cause of action is a bundles of facts which has to be considered during the course of trial. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and others , (2022) 10 SCC 235 has held that as per the settled position of law, at the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 in the CPC only the averments and allegations application/plaint are to be considered and not the written statement and/or reply to the application and/or the defence. Therefore, as such the learned trial court rightly dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh D. Desai V. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and others , reported in (2006) 5 SCC 638 while dealing with the issue of limitation, opined that "A plea of limitation cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts as in every case the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained which entirely question of fact". And hence, by not allowing the parties to lead evidence on the issue of limitation and deciding the issue of limitation finally under the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is illegal and the same is liable to be rejected and the Trial Court be directed to frame the issue of limitation and decide the same along with other issues after full-fledged trial. 16. In the matter of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “26. At this juncture, we wish to observe that we are not unmindful of the position of law that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the question of rejecting the plaint on that score has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record. However, in cases like this, where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the trial Court. We again place it on record that this is not a case where any forgery or fabrication is committed which had recently come to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Rather, the plaintiff and his predecessors did not take any steps to assert their title and rights in time. The alleged cause of action is also found to be creation of fiction. However, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Rather, the plaintiff and his predecessors did not take any steps to assert their title and rights in time. The alleged cause of action is also found to be creation of fiction. However, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The High Court also erred in affirming the same, keeping the question of limitation open to be considered by the trial Court after considering the evidence along with other issues, without deciding the core issue on the basis of the averments made by the Respondent No.1 in the Plaint as mandated by Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC. The spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC is only for the Courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex facie appears to be a clear abuse of process. The Courts by being reluctant only cause more harm to the defendants by forcing them to undergo the ordeal of leading evidence. Therefore, we hold that the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold.” 17. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karam Singh vs. Amarjit Singh & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2240 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “15. Before we assess the correctness of the impugned orders, we must remind ourselves of the basic principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 112 of CPC: Here, the defendants seek rejection of plaint under clause (d) of Rule 11 (i.e., suit barred by law). Clause (d) makes it clear that while considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At this stage, the defense is not to be considered. Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint. 17. Apart from above, the suit was not for a mere declaration of the will being null and void but for possession as well. The plaintiff claimed title over the suit land by natural succession and sought possession based on title. 17. Apart from above, the suit was not for a mere declaration of the will being null and void but for possession as well. The plaintiff claimed title over the suit land by natural succession and sought possession based on title. Where a suit is for possession of immovable property or any interest therein, based on title, the limitation period is 12 years when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff (vide Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act). 18. In Indira v. Arumugam, this court held that when the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established based on relevant documents and other evidence, unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. Consequently, when a suit is instituted for possession, based on title, to defeat the suit on the ground of adverse possession, the burden is on the defendant to prove adverse possession for the prescriptive period. This, therefore, in our view, cannot be an issue on which the plaint could be rejected at the threshold. Moreover, the plaintiffs herein, had clearly disclosed that they had been contesting the will in the mutation proceedings which culminated in the year 2017. The suit was instituted within three years thereafter to declare the mutation entry illegal. Thus, considering that mutation proceedings are summary in nature, the institution of the regular suit questioning the same is not ex facie barred by law. 19. That apart, where several reliefs are sought in suit, if any one of the reliefs is within the period of limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected as barred by law by taking recourse to Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. 20. Further, in N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board 12 relying on earlier decision of this court in "C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa 12 it was held: "23...in a suit for declaration with a further relief, the limitation would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further relief. In fact, a suit for a declaration of title to immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such a property continues and subsists. When such right continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and there would be no limitation for such a suit. In fact, a suit for a declaration of title to immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such a property continues and subsists. When such right continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and there would be no limitation for such a suit. The principle is that the suit for a declaration for a right cannot be held to be barred so long as Right to Property subsist". 24. Even otherwise, though the limitation for filing a suit for declaration of title is three years as per Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act but for recovery of possession based upon title, the limitation is 12 years from the date the possession of the defendant becomes adverse in terms of Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Therefore, suit for the relief of possession was not actually barred and as such the court of first instance could not have dismissed the entire suit as barred by time.” 18. Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pandurangan vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar and another passed in Civil Appeal No. 7743/2025 decided on 14.07.2025 , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1425 has dealth with the similar issue and held as follows:- “8. In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat [Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat, (2021) 9 SCC 99 : (2021) 4 SCC (Civ) 489] , this Court held that the adjudication of the plea of res judicata is beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11CPC, the Court held : (SCC p. 112, para 25) “25. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarised as follows: 25.1. To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to. 25.2. The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application. 25.3. To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to. 25.2. The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application. 25.3. To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i) the “previous suit” is decided (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit. 25.4. Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues, and decision in the “previous suit”, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.” (emphasis supplied) Issue relating to whether the ex parte decree is obtained by collusion, or whether Defendant 1, as alleged, has played fraud by filing a suit in a court having no jurisdiction or whether the appellant is a bona fide purchaser or not needs to be examined in detail. This Court has held that such circumstances require an in- depth examination of the previous decree, and its impact on the second suit. Res judicata cannot be decided merely on assertions made in the application seeking rejection of plaint. As held by this Court in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava [V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551 ] identifying similarity in causes of action should be a matter for trial where documents from the first suit are studied and analysed. Res judicata cannot be a matter of speculation or inference. In Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood [Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2459] this Court took a strong view against the plea of res judicata being raised in applications seeking rejection of plaint and held as follows : (Keshav Sood case [Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2459] , SCC OnLine SC paras 5-6) “5. As far as scope of Order 7 Rule 11CPC is concerned, the law is well settled. As far as scope of Order 7 Rule 11CPC is concerned, the law is well settled. The Court can look into only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest, documents produced along with the plaint. The defence of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot be looked into while deciding such application. 6. Hence, in our view, the issue of res judicata could not have been decided on an application under Order 7 Rule 11CPC. The reason is that the adjudication on the issue involves consideration of the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the trial court and the judgment of the appellate courts. Therefore, we make it clear that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench at this stage could have decided the plea of res judicata raised by the appellant on merits.” 10. From the order passed by the trial court it is apparent that there is neither consideration nor analysis of the case set up by the appellant in plaint. Further, the trial court questioned the legality of the plaintiff's action on the ground that, “he did not raise any objection regarding the decree passed in O.S. No. 298/96. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the plea of fraud raised by the 1st respondent is not acceptable one”. With this view of the matter, the trial court rejected the objection of the appellant to the applicability of Order 7 Rule 11CPC by holding: “12. The respondents’ counsel submitted that such a type of question cannot be decided as preliminary issue. In support of their contention, they have filed our Hon'ble Court judgment in Kaliyambal v. Padmini [Kaliyambal v. Padmini, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 187 : (2009) 4 LW 432 ] and A. Chinnaraj v. Saroja Ammal [A. Chinnaraj v. Saroja Ammal, 2007 SCC OnLine Mad 769 : (2007) 4 LW 580 ] , M. Thandavaraya Poosalai v. M. Periyasamy Asari [M. Thandavaraya Poosalai v. M. Periyasamy Asari, (2000) 3 Mad LJ 342] , Laljivora v. Srividya [Laljivora v. Srividya, 2001 SCC OnLine Mad 358 : (2002) 1 LW 398 ] . But those are dealing with regarding court fees. But as far as the case on hand is concerned, it is not regarding court fees. Therefore, the abovesaid citations do not apply to this suit. For the abovesaid reasons and explanations, the petition is allowed. But those are dealing with regarding court fees. But as far as the case on hand is concerned, it is not regarding court fees. Therefore, the abovesaid citations do not apply to this suit. For the abovesaid reasons and explanations, the petition is allowed. No costs.” 11. We are not in agreement with the approach and reasoning adopted by the trial court. The appellant's revision under Article 227 was similarly dismissed by the High Court holding that the decision of the trial court does not warrant interference. 12. While we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 298/96 dated 29-7-1997 would or would not operate as res judicata barring the present suit, we hold that enquiry into this question could not have been decided under Order 7 Rule 11CPC, particularly in the context of the specific averments made by the appellant in the plaint about the ex parte decree, the circumstances surrounding the said transaction and the prayer in the suit for declaration and the consequential relief. 13.For the reasons as indicated hereinabove, we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court in Pandurangan v. R. Jayarama Chettiar [Pandurangan v. R. Jayarama Chettiar, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 39518] dated 20-3- 2019 and restore the suit O.S. No. 60 of 2009 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo to its original number. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2009, there shall be a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit. 14.While concluding, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the grounds raised by the defendants, including those relating to res judicata are kept open for final determination.” 19. Now, reverting to the facts of the present case and the settled law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is abundantly clear that the questions relating to limitation, existence of cause of action, valuation of the suit, fixation and sufficiency of court fees, as well as the plea of res judicata, are matters which fall squarely within the domain of trial and cannot be conclusively determined at the threshold under the limited scope of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has consistently held that such issues require comprehensive adjudication after the framing of appropriate issues and upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties, and that these disputed questions of fact and mixed questions of law and fact cannot be decided merely on the basis of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the law and the facts of the case in holding that the controversy involved necessitates proper adjudication after recording evidence, and therefore cannot be decided at the initial stage, and has consequently dismissed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which calls for no interference. 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has neither committed any jurisdictional error nor any error of law while dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the impugned order reflects a correct appreciation of the settled legal position governing the scope and ambit of the said provision. The trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with law, keeping in view that the issues raised by the applicants require adjudication on the basis of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at the threshold. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference, and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court calls for no interference. 21. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed hereinabove and in view of the settled position of law, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition filed by the applicant; consequently, the same stands dismissed , being devoid of substance and warranting no interference with the impugned order. 22. However, the learned trial Court is hereby directed to frame appropriate and comprehensive issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and to adjudicate the same after affording due opportunity to both sides to lead their respective evidence, and thereafter to decide the matter strictly in accordance with the settled principles of law and on the basis of the material brought on record.