IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1379 of 2006 SRI SRI 108 RAM JANKI JEE @ SRI SIYA RAMJEE @ SRI RAJ RAJENDRA JEE & ORS. Versus SHRI NARESH PRASAD SINGH @ RAM NARESH SINGH & ORS. ----------- 2. 11.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the relief sought in the plaint would seriously contend that there was no question of limitation, inasmuch as the relief which was sought therein is only with regard to a declaration that plaintiff no.3 being the Sebait alone is entitled to look after and manage the affairs of the deities, plaintiff nos. 1 and 2. In this context he has also invited attention of this Court towards paragraph 18 of the application filed by defendant no.1 wherein the suit is said to have been barred by law of limitation due non- institution of the suit within 12 years from the final order passed by the Commissioner of Darbhanga under the Ceiling Act. As a matter of fact when the plaintiffs petitioners have not sought any relief against the order of the Commissioner of Darbhanga Division in the ceiling case, normally the plea of limitation as raised was not really so relevant so as to decide the same 2 as a preliminary issue. In that view of the matter, this Court would set aside the impugned order and direct the court below to reconsider the issue taking into account that limitation can be decided as a preliminary issue if the facts are admitted but if the same require leading of evidence, such issue can be only decided with all other issues. The application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/