IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9328 of 2011 Sita Ram Singh Versus Jamuna Prasad Dhobi @ Jamuna R ----------- 06. 28.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed by the defendant-petitioner against the order dated 04.12.2010 passed by Munsif I, Sasaram in title suit no.86 of 2008 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for deciding the issue of limitation as preliminary issue. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit praying for declaring that the sale deed dated 23.01.1989 is void document and the suit has been filed in the year 2008. Therefore, it was barred by limitation. In such circumstances, the application was filed but the learned Court below rejected the said application. The learned counsel relied upon 2005(4) P.L.J.R. 150(Md. Ekram @ Md. Ekramul Haque and others vs. Sk. Jhaksha and others) and submitted that Article 58 of the Limitation Act is applicable and the plaintiff had the knowledge of execution of the sale deed in the year 1989 but the suit has been filed in the year 2008. In such circumstances, the learned Court below should have decided the issue as 2 preliminary issue and should have dismissed the suit itself. From perusal of the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that in that case, the challenge was to the survey entry. In the instant case at our hand, the plaintiff filed the suit primarily for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and also for declaration that the registered sale deed is void document. The plaintiff further prayed for declaration that the defendant did not derive title and possession on the basis of the said illegal document. So far the decision cited by the petitioner is concerned, in the said decision, Article 58 of the Limitation Act was considered. In the present case, the declaration is for title and moreover date of knowledge is important, which depends on evidence. So far deciding the question of limitation as preliminary issue is concerned, according to the petitioner himself, there were many proceedings between the parties from before and, therefore, the plaintiff had the knowledge about the existence of the sale deed. In my opinion, therefore, the issue depends on the facts and evidences that have to be gone into. Therefore, here the issue of limitation in the present case appears to be disputed question of fact and law and not a pure question of law as involved in the decision cited. Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 3 mandates that the Court shall pronounce judgment on all issues. This Rule 2 is subject to Sub Rule 2. The Court may decide an issue as preliminary issue if the same is not only question of law but also it must relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. As has been held above, since in the present case, the question of limitation is not a pure question of law and it depends on the facts and evidences and further, after amendment of Code of Civil Procedure in 1976, it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to decide an issue as preliminary issue. The Court has the discretion. In the present case, the learned Court below has exercised the discretion judiciously, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as there is no jurisdictional error. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)