1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 333 of 2011 Smt. Sushilabai w/o Shriram Sirsat & ors. ...Versus... Sk. Jilani Sk. Hussain (dead) thr. L.Rs. Sk. Gani Sk. Jilani & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. V.G. Wankhede Advocate for appellant. … CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 24.08.2011. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the suit itself was barred by limitation because the respondent/plaintiff purchased the suit property on 16.6.1970 from one Sitabai and admittedly he did not take possession of the suit property since then. Thereafter on 22.4.1990 Sitabai entered into an agreement for sale of the land of appellant with defendant/respondent and placed him in possession of the suit property. It is thereafter the suit came to be filed in the year 1991, meaning thereby that the suit was filed almost after 20 years, and therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. He then argued that “C” file was destroyed and the lower 2 appellate court had no original documents to decide the appeal and, therefore, there was no correct disposal of the appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, I find that the appellant was admittedly placed in possession of the property on 22.4.1990 pursuant to the date of agreement and the suit was filed in the year 1991, i.e. almost after one year. Sitabai never claimed possession and was not in fact a party to the suit to set up defence of limitation. Sofar as appellant is concerned, he has been in possession of the suit property since one year. Limitation for filing the suit is 12 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by limitation as against appellant. The second submission is that the appellate court could not have decided the appeal without original documents. It is to be noted that in para 12 it is clearly stated that paper-book was prepared and notice of documents was also given which was kept in “C” file, which was later destroyed. In view of the above, I do not find any error on the part of the lower appellate court in deciding the appeal on the basis of the documents in “C” file. No substantial question of law is involved. S.A. No. 333 of 2011 is dismissed. Judge 3 /TA/