1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.178 OF 2009 1. Shaikh Izharuddin s/o Shaikh Mohamaddudin, age 33 years, Occu. Agriculture, r/o Neknoor, Tq. and Dist. Beed. 2. Shaikh Akhtar s/o Sk.Amir Attar, Age 35 yrs. Occu. Agriculture, R/o Neknoor, Tq. and Dist. Beed. ...APPLICANTS (ORIGINAL DEFENDANT NOS. 10 and 11) VERSUS 1. Fatema Begum w/o Kabir Ahmed Khan, Age 69 yrs. Occu. Household, r/o. Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist.Beed. 2. Rabbani Begum w/o Akbar Pasha, Age 57 yrs. Occu.Household, r/o Neknoor, Tq. and Dist. Beed. 3. Gilani Begum w/o Majid Khan, Age 54 yrs. Occu. Household, r/o Neknoor, Tq. & Dist. Beed. Through G.P.A. Akbar Ahmad Khan s/o Kabir Ahmed Khan, Age 70 yrs. Occu. Agriculture, r/o Ambejogai, Tq. Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. (Original plaintiffs) 2 4. Mohammad Moizudin s/o Bashiruddin, Age 72 yrs. Occu. Agriculture, r/o Neknoor, Tq. and Dist.Beed. 5. Ghulam Mohiuddin s/o Bashiruddin, Age 66 yrs. Occu. Agriculture, r/o Neknoor, Tq. and Dist. Beed. 6. Asabuddin s/o Bashiruddin, Age 60 yrs. Occu. Agriculture, r/o Neknoor, Tq. and Dist. Beed. 7. Abeduddin s/o Bashiruddin, Age 58 yrs. Occu. Agriculture, r/o Neknoor, Tq. and Dist. Beed. 8. Validuddin s/o Bashiruddin, Age 51 yrs. Occu. Agriculture, r/o Neknoor, Tq. and Dist. Beed. 9. Mohammaduddin s/o Bashiruddin Age 47 yrs. Occu. Agriculture, r/o Neknoor, Tq. and Dist. Beed. 10. Shaikh Masoomuddin s/o Bashiruddin, Age 80 yrs. Occu. Agriculture, r/o Neknoor, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 11. Aziz Begum w/o Shafiuddin, Age 65 yrs. Occu. Household, r/o Neknoor, Tq. and Dist. Beed. 12. Shaikh Najibuddin s/o Moizuddin, Age 32 yrs. Occu. Agriculture, r/o Neknoor, Tq. and Dist. Beed. (Original Defendants no.1 to 9) ..NON APPLICANTS. ... 3 Mr. C.V.Dharurkar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. P.D.Suryawanshi, Adv., for respondent no.1. Mr. R.V.Gore, Adv., for respondent nos.4,5, 7, 8, 9. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE :24th Feb.,2010 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard. The matter is finally decided. Rule, returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The defendant Nos. 10 and 11, present applicants, made application to the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed, in RCS No. 126/2009, below Exh.43 to frame preliminary issue on the point of limitation. The application was allowed on 4th August, 2009, by framing the issue as to: "whether the suit is within limitation". The learned Judge heard the parties, framed a point and recorded a finding that the suit is within limitation. This finding recorded by the learned Judge is assailed by the present applicants (original defendant nos. 10 and 11) who are, indeed, purchasers of the property from one Masoom and from other respondents Gulam, Abed, Vali and Muhamad by sale deeds dt.5th Feb., 2009 and 21st Jan.,2009, respectively. 4 3. Several contentions were raised; one of the contention by Mr.Dharurkar, Counsel, is, the applicability of Art.65-B of Limitation Act will have its pivotal role while, according to the plaintiffs, it will be Articles 92 to 96 of the Limitation Act which will be revolving to the matter. The date of knowledge of the transaction between the defendant nos. 10 and defendant no.11 with other defendants is crucial and, consequently, it was pleaded that death of Smt. Mumtaj, original owner of the property in the year 1974, will not change the situation. 4. The parties in the fact situation are bound to lead evidence, they will be required to establish as to how the suit is within limitation or otherwise. Keeping all these aspects open, the findings recorded by the learned Judge about the suit to be in limitation is kept in abeyance. The learned Judge will decide the same with other issues. With above observations, the order under challenge is set aside. The finding to issue to be finally given with other issues. Civil Revision Application allowed. Rule made absolute. No costs. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] agp/178-09cra