IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 874 of 2007. MD. ABSARUL HAQUE, SON OF LATE ENAMUL HAQUE, R/O VILLAGE – BANS KOTHI, DIGHA, NORTH OF MASJID, P.S. DIGHA, P.O. DIGHA GHAT, DISTT. – PATNA AND 2. MD. INTEKHABUL HAQUE, SON OF MD. ABSARUL HAQUE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANS KOTHI DIGHA, P.O. DIGHA GHAT, P.S. DIGHA, DISTT. PATNA … DEFENDANTS / PETITIOERS Versus SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD, SON OF SHRI HARI NARAYAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BAKARGANJ, DALDALI ROAD, P.O. + P.S. KADAM KUAN, DISTT. – PATNA ….. …………………………………..PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE PARTY. ---------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate. ---------- 2. 18.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2007 passed by the Sub Judge Ist, Patna in Money Suit No. 74/2000, whereby defendants’ application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the court concerned. It is submitted on behalf of the defendants- petitioners that from the pleadings and materials available on record, it is evident that the defendants’ prayer is barred by law of limitation and, thus, the plaint ought to have been rejected by the court concerned. The trial court on consideration of the issue has stated that the point of limitation has been framed as one of the issue to be decided in this suit and that being 2 mixed questions of law and fact cannot be decided at this stage as preliminary issue. Moreover, it has also been stated that nothing had been brought on record by the defendant to show that the suit was admittedly barred by law of limitation and they had raised this issue for the first time when the suit was pending for leading evidence on behalf of the defendants since13.08.2005. In view of the above, the trial court has rejected the prayer of the defendants. I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the concerned court in the impugned order dated 22.01.2007 as it has clearly pointed out that the point of limitation is already an issue to be effectively decided in the suit in the light of the evidence being adduced by the parties. As a result, this Civil Revision fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )