Meaning thereby, a limitation of three years from the date of knowledge for filing of the suit has been prescribed. It is nowhere the case of the plaintiffs that they were not aware and did not have the knowledge of the alleged sale prior to 2013. So far as the judgment in the case of Chotanben (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is concerned, there is no dispute regarding the proposition of law that defence available or the plea taken in the written statement or any application cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The said principle would not apply in the present matter as in the matter at hand, this Court is not required to delve into the defence or the pleadings taken by the defendants in the written statement. A bare reading of the plaint itself is sufficient to conclude that the plaintiffs were aware of the sale deed in the year 1996 itself and the present suit has been filed in the year 2013 which is clearly barred by law of limitation. In view of the above observations, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees on this count. Conclusively, the present second appeal is dismissed .
