wp4967.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.4967/2011 Yogesh Ishwariprasad Pandey and others -vs- Gaimukh Deosthan and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri T. Darda, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 04.10.2011. Heard. There is no apparent error, much less a jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 08/09/2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for deciding the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue. The trial Court rightly found that the issue of limitation was a mixed issue of law and fact and the same could have been decided along with the other issues, more so when the plaintiff had filed the evidence of two of its witnesses on affidavit as early as in the year 2008 and the matter was pending for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses for long. The trial Court further found that this Court had directed the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and when the matter was at the stage of evidence and specially for cross-examination, the issue of limitation, which was a wp4967.11.odt 2/2 mixed issue of law and fact could have been more conveniently decided along with the other issues. The judgment reported in 2000 A I H C 4944 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Specially, because the suit in that case was filed in the year 1999 and immediately on putting appearance before the Court, the defendant had moved an application praying that the issue of limitation be framed and be decided as a preliminary issue. Such is not the case here. The matter is lingering for more than three years at the stage of evidence, as the plaintiff’s witnesses are not cross-examined. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE