gst 1 cra405.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 405 OF 2010. Mukesh Dingreja ... .... ..... .... Applicant. V/s Eric Joseph Lewis & Anr. ... .... .... Respondents. Mr.Pravartak Pathak i/by Mr.U.P.Warunjikar, Adv. For the applicant. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 12th Jan., 2011. PC: By way of present revision application the applicant challenges the order dated 15.3.2010 vide which the application of the present applicant (defendant) for deciding preliminary issues of limitation came to be rejected. 2. Shri Warunjikar, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that the suit as filed by the respondent (plaintiff) was ex-facie beyond limitation as was filed beyond a period of six months form the alleged dispossession. It is therefore submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application. 3. Learned trial Court has found that the question with regard to limitation is mixed question of law and fact and it cannot be decided without permitting the parties to adduce their evidence. Apart from that, at the stage of considering such an application what would be relevant is only averments made in the plaint. In the plaint cause of acti9on given is that of May, 2007. If that is to be considered no error could be found in the approach adopted by the learned trial Court to warrant interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence civil revision application stands rejected.