ALI BAIG, J.----Through the instant civil revision petition filed under section 115, C.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment/decree dated 22-10-2019 passed by the learn ed Civil Judge 1st class Hunza, whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., by the petitioners/defendants for rejection of plaint.
2. Brief facts referred in the instant revisi on petition are that the present respondents/plaintif fs (herein-after added as respondents) instituted a suit for declaration, possession of Restaurant fully described in head note of plaint and recovery of arrear of rent of the disputed Restaurant amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacks) against the present petitioners/defendants (here-in-after called as petitioners) in the trial Court. During pendency of suit the present petitioners, filed an application under VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., for rejection of plaint asserting there that suit of the respondents is hopelessly time barred, therefore, is not maintained and liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 1 1(d), Cr .P.C.
3. The present respondents contested the aforesaid application by filing of their written reply and of learned trial Court after hearing of pro and contra arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. vide the impugned judgment/order dated 22-10-2019 hence, this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case, as such the impugned order/judgment is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the suit of the respondents was hopelessly time barred and was liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., but the learned trial court has wrongly dismisse d the petition of the petitioners filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., therefore, by accepting this revision petition the impugned order/judgment passed by the learned trial Court may be set aside and suit/plaint of the respondents may be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., to meet the ends of justice.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the suit of the respondents was well within time, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The learned counsel for respondents further submitted that limitation is even mix question of law and facts which cannot be decided without recording pro and contra evidence of the parties, hence the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners filed Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., vide the impugned order/judgment, which may be maintained in the interest of justice.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions is made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance.
7. Perusal of contents of the application filed Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., by the petitioners reveals that the petitioners have filed aforesaid application on the sole ground that suit of the respondents barred by time. From perusal of averment of plaint, it transpires that the suit of the respondents is prima facie with in time.
8. Moreover , the relief sought by the respondents in the plaint requires proof, pro and contra by leading evidence in respect of conciliation deed dated 15th September 1995. It is also settled principle of law that the question of limitation is not a pure question of law rather the same is mixed question of law and facts, which cannot be resolved/settled in absence of evidence. Whenever , a plaintif f raises factual controversy in the plaint, he cannot be non-suited at the very inception of the suit on the basis of limitation. After framing issues and recording of evidence, the trial Court can legitimately decide about the question of limitation and other questions involved in the suit.
7(sic) We are of the considered view, that the rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation at pre-mature stage is not permissible. In this connection, reference can be made to the reported judgments of Peshawar High Court reported in 2011 CLC 1946 .
8(sic) In view of above facts and circumstance, we have come to the conclusion, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., vide the impugned judgment/order . There is no illegality and material irregularity in the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court.
9. For the foregoing reasons this revision petition being without any substance is hereby by dismissed. File.