1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 46/2009 New Grand Education Society and another ..versus.. Sau. Madhuri Surendra Dandawate & others WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 47/2009 New Grand Education Society and another ..versus.. Ku.l Kalpana Narsinghrao Nikam and others WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 48/2009 New Grand Education Society and another ..versus.. Sau. Shashikala Gyaneshwar Ingle and others WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 49/2009 New Grand Education Society and another ..versus.. Ku. Vidya Gangadhaqr Zade and others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Shri M.L.Somalwar, Advocate, for petitioners Smt. U.A.Patil, Advocate, for Respondent NO.1 Shri Mishra, Advocate, for Respondent No.2 Shri N.W.Sambre, G.P. for Respondent No.3 C ORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED : 17th September, 2009. 2 Common Order. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By these appeals, the appellants have challenged the common order dated 25th November, 2008, allowing Writ Petition Nos. 4098/2008, 4094/2008, 4131/2008 and 4409/2008, holding that the trial Court had erred in deciding the issue of limitation in favour of the present appellants. 3. The Respondent No.1 in each of the appeals filed a suit against the appellants claiming relief of declaration and for recovery of salary for the period ending upto June 1995. The suit were filed in the year 2001. 4. The defence of the appellants was that the respondent no.1 in each of the appeals had executed documents, which clearly showed that the salaries were paid to them. According to the respondent no.1, these documents were forged. 5. In this backdrop, the learned Single Judge held that the issues whether suits were barred or not, were dependent upon the finding on the issue as to whether the documents are forged or not. 3 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. In any case, the trial Court should not have decided the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue since in the suits, besides recovery of salary, declarations were sought and as such the trial Court could not have decided the issue of limitation as preliminary issue, which was only pertaining to one relief. Needless to mention that the issue regarding limitation would depend on the findings given by the trial Court as to whether the documents relied on by the appellants are forged or not. 7. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the present appeals and hence the appeals are rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Rvjalit