: 1 : 656-11-cra=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 656 OF 2011 Mangalprabhat Gumanmal Lodha .. Applicant v/s. Hemant Yeshwant Nadgaonkar & Ors. .. Plaintiffs And M/s. H.N. Enterprises & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel, V.B. Naik i/b M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the applicant Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Counsel with Shivraj R. Patil, H.A. Jaimalani for respondent nos. 1 to 6. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 19th OCTOBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Apte appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent nos. 1 to 6 waives service. By consent, petition is taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioners who are defendants in the S.C. Suit No.355 of 2011 filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane an : 2 : 656-11-cra=.sxw application below Exh.14 praying that on the basis of averments in the plaint and looking to the prayer clause (f), the suit is beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, the plaint should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. This application was decided by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane by order dated 7th July, 2011. The said application came to be dismissed. 3. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that if one peruses the plaint and appreciate the fact, it is patently clear that the declaration sought in regard to the three transactions in terms of prayer clause (f) are patently beyond the period of limitation and if that prayer is considered as one beyond the period of limitation, the entire suit will have to be dismissed and that is how the petitioners approached the learned trial Judge for rejection of the plaint. 4. Having considered the controversy, I am of the view that looking to the diverse prayers as also the fact that the three agreements which are referred to are not signed by original plaintiff nos. 5 and 6, it would be proper that the learned trial Judge frames issues on the basis of the : 3 : 656-11-cra=.sxw pleadings and decides the said issues on merits. This Court was informed that the petitioners have raised the contention in their written statement that the suit is barred by period of limitation. Surely, if such a contention is taken in the written statement, the learned trial Judge should be persuaded by the petitioners to frame an issue as regards limitation so that at the time of trial, the learned Jude would be able to sort out prayers of the plaint, which can be treated as beyond the period of limitation. Once this exercise is carried out, it could be said that the matter would be properly attended to. 5. It is noticed that this application was filed for the purpose of rejection of plaint on the limited question of the suit being beyond the period of limitation. In view of the aforesaid expression, this order dated 7th July, 2011 cannot come in the way of petitioners. This order dated 7th July, 2011 shall not be referred to by the trial Court for the purposes of arriving at the final conclusion. Merits of the entire matter are left open. With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Revision Application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. : 4 : 656-11-cra=.sxw 6. Civil Application No.505 of 2011 stands disposed of in view of the disposal of the Civil Revision Application. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)