R.K. Deshpande, J. - (1.) THE respondents are the original plaintiffs who have filed Special Civil Suit No. 691 of 1993 sometime on or about 2nd September, 2013. The suit claims a declaration that the sale deed dated 13th December, 1978 said to have been executed by Mrs. Cecilea Azavedo Cordeiro in favour of the father of the defendants Shri Basantkumar Shukla as illegal, null and void. The suit also claims a declaration that the defendants have no right to remain in possession of the suit property and the decree for possession has been claimed. The plaintiffs have asked for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing, obstructing or dealing with the property in any manner in future.
(2.) IMMEDIATELY upon the receipt of suit summon, the defendants filed an application Exh. 18 under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of C.P.C for rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and that the suit is barred by law of limitation. This application has been rejected by the trial Court on 20th January, 2014. The Court has held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot, therefore, be decided under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. The Court has perused paragraph No. 25 of the plaint and has observed that the plaint discloses the cause of action. The original defendants are, therefore, before this Court in this writ petition. On 12th February, 2014, this Court had issued notice and granted ad -interim relief of stay of further proceedings of the suit. On 7th January, 2015, Rule was granted in the matter and the interim order was continued.
(3.) IT is not in dispute that the trial Court has proceeded against the defendants with the order of "No W.S". Till this date the defendants have not filed their written statement, nor such order of "No W.S" has been challenged. Undisputedly, when the application at Exh. 18 under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of C.P.C was filed, the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 was pending. Upon rejection of the application at Exh. 18, this Court has stayed the further proceedings of the civil suit, as a result the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 has also not been decided and it is pending.;