CR No.1829/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1829/2011 Date of decision: 21.3.2011 Mahender Singh ....................Petitioner v. Ramwati and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendant no.1/petitioner by filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has assailed the order dated 4.10.2010 whereby his application for deciding the preliminary issue of jurisdiction and maintainability on the ground of limitation has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defendant/ petitioner had inherited the estate of their grandfather Hira Lal on the basis of Will dated 4.1.1994. Subsequently, on the death of Hira Lal on 28.2.1984 the mutation of inheritance on the basis of Will was sanctioned in favour of defendants on 12.6.1986. It is further submitted that thereafter the land was acquired by the State Government by way of acquisition in a phased manner in the years CR No.1829/2011 2 1995,1998 and 13th August,2002. The present suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff- Ramwati, Bua of the defendants in the year 2007. Learned counsel further contends that in view of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, the jurisdiction of the trial court was barred and further the law of limitation did not permit the maintainability of the suit. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to accept the pleas raised on behalf of the defendant/ petitioner. It is not in dispute that respondent Aunt has claimed 1/7th share in the estate of her father Hira Lal and sought the declaration that the alleged Will dated 4.1.1994 is a forged and fabricated document, qua which the Civil Court only has the jurisdiction. It also cannot be disputed that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and therefore, need not be decided as a preliminary issue. I am in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on both counts. In view of the above, no case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out. Dismissed. 21.3.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge