1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 674 OF 2008 Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, Heerabai Haridas Vidyanagari, Amrutdham, Panchavati, Nashik Through Trustees: a) Shri Balasaheb Devram Wagh & Ors. ... Applicants Vs. Dr. Shri santu Gopala More & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. P.B.Shah,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.Rahul D.Motkari,Advocate, for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 1st April, 2010. P.C. 1. The learned Counsel for the applicants makes a statement that the revision-petitioners have also filed First Appeal No.1385 of 2008. The respondent No.1, who was a teacher with the revision-petitioners, resigned from service in 2004. He filed Special Civil Suit No.303 of 2007 for recovery of certain dues towards difference of pay, arrears of salary,gratuity, etc. The revision-applicant, who was the defendant, raised objection to the tenability of the suit on the ground of limitation. That objection was rejected. Hence, the Revision Application. 2 2. The learned Counsel for the revision-applicant contends that the question whether the suit is within limitation or not has to be considered on the basis of pleadings in the plaint. I have no doubt about it. However, it appears that the 5th Pay Commission which came into force with effect from 1.1.1996 was actually implemented and the notification of the state Government came much later. The learned Counsel for the revision-applicant makes a statement that the 5th Pay Commission was made applicable from the year 2000. However, he is unable to give date of notification issued by the Government. The amount on account of difference in pay on revision of pay would become due only from the date when the 5th Pay Commission was actually made applicable by issuing notification in respect of the educational institutions. This and other several factors will have to be taken into consideration at the time of trial. Therefore, the suit cannot be dismissed at the threshold holding that it is barred by limitation. There is possibility that some part of the claim may be within limitation, while some part may be beyond limitation. Therefore, that issue will have to be decided after hearing evidence of both parties. Therefore, that issue cannot be decided as preliminary. With this clarification, the Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) 3