IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1047 of 2007 UMESHWAR GIRI @ UMESH GIRI, Son of late Rajeshwar Giri, R/o village Kail Tola Jogapur, P.O. Kailgarh, P.S. Barharia, District Siwan Defendant . … Petitioner Versus 1. PARMANAND PANDEY , son of late Mahesh Pandey, R/o village Pyarepur, P.S. Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj 2. Chandrika Ram Son of Bhuneshwar Ram 3. Ash Pujan Ram, son of Bhuneshwar Ram 4. Yogendra Ram , Son of Bhuneshwar Ram No. 2 to 4 residents of village Lakari Tole Halim, P.S. Barharia, District Siwan …… Plaintiffs/ Opposite Parties 1st Set 5. Smt. Madhuri Devi, W/o Sri Dhanlal Bharti, D/o late Rajeswhar Giri, R/o village Bhorhopur, P.S. Ekma, District Saran 6. Smt. Gayatri Devi, W/o Sri Gaya Bharti, Daughter of late Rajeshwar Giri, R/o village Goreya Kothi Western Mathian, P.S. Goreya Kothi, District Siwan …… Defendants / Opposite Parties 2nd set ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parwat, Advocate ------- 2 05.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision is directed against the order dated 21.2.2007 passed by the Sub Judge VII, Siwan, in Title Suit No. 256 of 2004, whereby on a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the maintainability of the suit, the learned court has held that the question of limitation raised by the - 2 - defendant – petitioner would be considered at the time of final disposal of the suit. Learned counsel for the defendant – petitioner submitted that the cause of action arose in the year 1980 when the land was purchased by the petitioner and again also on the date of passing of order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in his favour. In that view of the matter, it is urged that the court below ought to have decided the issue of limitation at the earliest in terms of Order 14 Rule 1(2) of the C.P.C. The Court concerned upon hearing the parties has held that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to decide the issue at the time of disposal of the case. From perusal of the plaint, it appears that the suit has been filed for declaration of right, title and interest apart from declaration that order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is nullity and also for confirmation of possession and in case the defendant petitioner is found in possession of the - 3 - suit property, then, for a decree of recovery of possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the plaint of the concerned suit at the time of hearing of this case. From bare perusal of plaint, it appears, in view of the statement made therein, that the question of limitation in this case being a missed question of fact and law, the court below had rightly observed that the same should be decided at the time of final disposal of the case. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Court concerned while passing the impugned order. As a result this civil revision is dismissed. Spd/ (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)