IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1545 of 2006 SARDAR SOHAN SINGH @ SOHAN SINGH Versus HUNNATMAL NAHAR & ANR ----------- 2 12.12.2008 Heard Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner. This court would not find any error in the impugned order much less jurisdictional error in allowing the prayer of the plaintiff-opposite party seeking amendment in the plaint. The apprehension of the petitioner, however, that even the issue of limitation has been answered and conclusively decided while disposing of the application seeking amendment by the impugned order, is wholly misconceived. The issue of limitation, if raised by the petitioner either in the written statement or in the supplementary written statement to be filed in view of the amendment allowed in the plaint, is definitely required to be gone into as a separate issue and at that point of time any observation made only for the purposes of passing the impugned order allowing amendment in the plaint cannot be utilized for adjudicating the issue of limitation. That being so, this Civil Revision application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)