The dismissal of a civil suit based on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The key points of this case revolve around the arguments of Defendant No. 9 (the revision applicant) and the defense by the Plaintiff.

1. Background:
   The suit was filed by the Plaintiff in 2020, seeking specific performance of an agreement from 1989, cancellation of a registered sale deed from 2011, and a declaration of title. Defendant No. 9, in possession of the property since 2011, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint, claiming that the suit is barred by the statute of limitations.

2. Defendant No. 9's Argument:

   • The Plaintiff's claim is based on an alleged agreement from 1989, which is unstamped, unregistered, and mentions a mobile phone number, a technology unavailable in India at that time.
   • Defendant No. 9 argues that the suit is time-barred, as it was filed 31 years after the alleged agreement. Moreover, the Plaintiff remained silent about the property for decades and did not act on his rights until 2020.
   • The property in question is subject to the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, which requires permission for sale from the competent authority—a step not followed in the purported 1989 agreement.

3. Plaintiff's Defense:
   The Plaintiff's counsel contends that the suit is not time-barred because it was filed within three years of the rejection of the Plaintiff's ALT (Agricultural Lands Tribunal) case in 2020. Furthermore, the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided without leading evidence.

4. Court's Consideration:

   • The Court acknowledges that the Trial Court rejected the application, holding that limitation cannot be decided without evidence. However, the High Court examines the facts more closely.
   • The High Court finds it problematic that the Plaintiff remained silent for 31 years, particularly when a mutation entry was made in 1996 after the death of one of the co-owners.
   • The suit appears to be barred by limitation based on the facts presented in the plaint, especially given the long gap between the 1989 agreement and the 2020 suit.

5. Conclusion:

   • The High Court emphasizes that the issue of limitation, though often a mixed question of law and fact, can be determined in certain cases based on the clear facts of the case.
   • The suit, on its face, seems time-barred, and the application under Order VII Rule 11 should have been granted by the Trial Court.