IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.591 of 2009 1. VASHISTH PANDEY, S/O LATE RAM PRASSAN PANDEY. 2. HARI NARAIN PANDEY, S/O SHRI VASHISHTH PANDEY. 3. SUMAN PANDEY, S/O SHRI VASHISTH PANDEY. 4. SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI, W/O SRI VASHISHTH PANDEY. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-MATHIYA, RASHULPUR, P.O.-PURAINA, P.S.-SHANICHARY, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. …………DEFENDANT 1ST PARTY/PETITIONERS. Versus 1. TEJ NARAIN PANDEY 2. BHAGWATI PANDEY 3. RAMAKANT PANDEY 4. UDAIMAN PANDEY ALL SONS OF LATE BINDHYACHAL PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE-MATHIYA RASHULPUR, P.O.-PURAINA, P.S.- SHANICHARY, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. …………PLAINTIFFS.-OPPOISTE PARTIES. 5. NAND KISHORE PANDEY 6. JAG MOHAN PNDEY SONS OF LATE RAM CHANDRA PANDEY 7. RAJENDRA KUMAR PANDEY 8. RAJIV KUMAR PANDEY SONS OF SHRI NARAIN PANDEY ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-MATHIYA RASHULPUR, P.O.-PURAINA, P.S.-SHANICHARY, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. …………DEFENDANTS 2ND PARTY/O.Ps 9. SHIV PUJAN PANDEY, SON OF RAMA NANDAN PANDEY. 10. BRIJESH PANDEY 11. PRAMOD PANDEY SONS OF SHIV PUJAN PANDEY. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILAGE-MATHIYA RASHULPUR, P.O.- PURAINA, P.S.-SHANICHARY, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ……………DEFENDANTS 3RD PARTY/O.Ps 12. RAM PUJAN PANDEY, SON OF LATE RAMA NAND PANDEY. 13. ANIRUDH PANDEY. 14. RAGHAV PANDEY. SONS OF RAM PUJAN PANDEY. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-MATHIYA RASHULPUR, P.O.- PURAINA, P.S.-SHANICHARY, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ………………DEFENDANTS 4TH PARTY/O.Ps. ----------- 2 15.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The defendants have filed this revision application against order dated 2 12.2.2009 passed by Sub-Judge-IInd, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 50 of 1999 by which the learned court below has rejected the application of the petitioners filed under Order XIV Rule 2 and Section 151 of the C.P.C. for deciding the preliminary issue of limitation in the matter. The learned court below has come to a conclusion that in view of the pleadings of the parties the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and that has to be decided at the time of hearing, for which issue has also been framed. This Court does not find any error in the said order of the learned court below. However, since the suit is of the year 1999, the court below shall make all endeavors to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months. With above observations, this revision application is disposed of. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)