IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.417 of 2007 1. Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma 2. Sri Rajesh Kumar 3. Sri Randhir Kumar All sons of late Sachidanand Prasad 4. Most. Sita Devi w/o late Sachida Nand Prasad All residents of village Susta, P.O. Susta, P.S. Sadar, Sub-Division Muzaffarpur East, District Muzaffarpur. … Plaintiffs-Petitioners versus 1.Shambhu Mahto son of late Gonu Mahto 2.Smt. Geeta Devi, w/o Shambhu Mahto Both All residents of village Susta, P.O. Susta, P.S. Sadar, Sub-Division Muzaffarpur East, District Muzaffarpur. …Defendants-Opposite Parties …….. 02/ 13.08.2009 This petition has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 27.11.2006, by which learned Munsif (East), Muzaffarpur allowed the petition filed by the defendants and framed the issue of bar provided by the law of limitation as preliminary issue to be decided in Title Suit No. 203 of 1998. 2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners for declaration of their title and for correction of the khatian as well as for other ancillary reliefs. Thereafter, the defendants-opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement that the suit was part and parcel of C.S. Plot no.79 and R.S. Plot no.245 and the defendants-opposite parties have constructed their house in their own plot and survey khatian. Thereafter, issues were also framed. 3. However, the defendants filed an interlocutory application under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil 2 Procedure on 30.05.2006 stating that since the suit was barred by law of limitation, the said issue should be decided as a preliminary issue. To the said interlocutory application, the plaintiffs filed their rejoinder on 11.07.2006 objecting to the said preliminary issue. 4. The learned court below considered the .entire matter in detail and framed the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue and directed both the parties to bring their evidence on that issue by the next date. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that since the prima-facie point of limitation was present and the defendants were pressing it, the learned court below was justified in framing it as the preliminary issue. 6. In the said facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )