IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1345 OF 2009 Shri Harishchandra Kashinath Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Smt.Sakubhai Govind Patil & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.R.R.Salvi for Petitioners. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 13, 2009. MARCH 13, 2009. MARCH 13, 2009. P.C. 1. No interference is warranted with the discretionary order passed by the Court below at this interlocutory stage in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioners, however, argues that the Court below has not addressed the question that the Suit is barred by law of limitation. 2. In the first place, no such contention has : 2 : been raised before the Court below. The fact that averment to that effect has been made in the Application does not mean that the said argument was pressed before the lower Court. This Court will go by the record as maintained by the lower Court. The impugned order does not reflect that position. Besides, question of limitation would be a mix question of fact and law and cannot be the basis to reject the claim outright in exercise of provisions under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.