HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5257 OF 2007 Date:08-07-2010 Between: M/s. Prasad & Company, rep.by its Managing Partner and others …. Petitioners AND R. Janardhan Rao S/o. R. Venkateswara Rao …. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5257 OF 2007 ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. Petitioners are the defendants, who filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter aliIa seeking to assail the order dated 23-10-2007 in I.A. (SR) No.2061 of 2007, a petition under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, of the learned Principal Rent Controller – cum - XVII Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad, rejecting the application as premature and cannot be considered at that stage. 3. The brief facts that gave rise for filing of this revision are that respondent herein has filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.99,850/- along with interest etc. The main transaction, on which the respondent - plaintiff placed reliance, was taken place in the month of August, 1989. Whereas, in the cause of action paragraph of the suit, it has been stated that last payment was made in April, 2000 and subsequently respondent made demands on 23-1-2002, 18-02-2002 and 09-03-2002. 4. However, petitioners state that having regard to the dates that were mentioned therein and especially as the suit was filed only on 02-03-2005 in respect of the transaction that has taken place in August 1989, it is barred by limitation, as such, the suit has to be rejected. 5. The trial Court did not find favour with the said request of the petitioners and rejected the impugned application. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that in view of the specific allegations made in the cause of action paragraph of the suit by giving certain dates, which are set of facts, necessarily some evidence has to be taken from both sides either to accept the said version or to deny. Unless and until such material is available on record, it cannot be said that the dates mentioned in the cause of action paragraph are false or incorrect and would not come to the rescue of the plaintiff. 7. Having regard to the plea of limitation, it is virtually thrown out. It can as well taken as preliminary issue as the same is contained in the affidavits of both sides. It is also stated that respondent has already filed his affidavit of chief-examination. In view of the same, I do not find any merits in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Further, the trial Court is directed to take up the plea of limitation as preliminary issue and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after giving notices and opportunity to both sides. It is also open for both sides to lead any further evidence. No order as to costs. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J July 08, 2010 KTL