-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET CONTINUATION SHEET CONTINUATION SHEET SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.355 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.355 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.355 OF 2004 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court’s Court’s or orders or directions Judge’s orders & Registrar’s orders. ............................................................. Mr.Umesh Mankapure i/b Mr.R.V.More for the Appellants Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for Respondent Nos.2,3 and 4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: AUGUST 14, 2006. AUGUST 14, 2006. AUGUST 14, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocates for the parties. The Appellants are the original Plaintiffs. The contention raised by the learned Advocate for the Appellants is that if proviso to section 30 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is considered, the suit was within limitation and therefore the Appellate Court could not have set aside the decree on the ground of bar of limitation. 2.Even if the date of cause of action is taken as date of execution of document i.e. 12th September 1923 and proviso to section 30 of the said Act is applied, it is obvious that the suit filed by the original Plaintiff in the year 1982 was barred by limitation. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. -2- Judge. Judge. Judge.