IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 328 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 328 OF 2008 SECOND APPEAL NO. 328 OF 2008 Shri Mukund Ganesh Barcve & Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Sou. Pushpa Mukund Patankar ...Respondent Mr.Shriketan Chhothani, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A.M.Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 26th August, 2008. DATE: 26th August, 2008. DATE: 26th August, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The present Second Appeal is filed by the original defendant. Regular Civil Suit No.180 of 1999 filed by the plaintiff/respondent was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No.180 of 2007. The appellate Court, after going into the merits of the case, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Against that, Second Appeal is filed by the defendant. Mainly it is pointed out that while the trial Court had dismissed the suit on the ground that suit was barred by limitation, the appellate Court had neither raised any point of limitation for consideration nor the question of limitation was even touched in the judgment. It is contended that the appellate Court could not have allowed the appeal and passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff without specifically coming to conclusion that the suit was within limitation. 3. After some discussion at the Bar, the learned Counsel for both the parties agreed that this Appeal may be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.180 of 2007 may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the first appellate Court for deciding the appeal again after hearing the parties and particularly after considering the question of limitation. 4. Therefore, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.180 of 2007 is hereby set aside. The appeal is remanded back to the District Court, Sangli, for hearing the same afresh, particularly on the point of limitation. 5. All contentions of the parties are left open. This Court has not considered any of such contentions on merits. 6. As one of the defendants is a senior citizen aged 93 years, the District Court shall expedite the hearing of the appeal and dispose of the same, as early as possible and in any case within six months of the receipt of writ. 7. As the Second Appeal is disposed of, the C.A. No.737 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)