"•SY- IN THEHIGHCOURT OF GHHATriSGARH AT BJLASPUR W.P. lArt. 2271 NO.S'^-5 /2008 PETITIONERS ^^ ^ ^S's g'&.*1ii' 1. Shri Gomathi Wires Through - Managing Director, Plot No. 247/A, New Ramnath Road, Madurai fT.N.) 2. Sri Subranianium, aged about - 70 years, S/o. Shri A. Shanmugavadive, Mahaging Director, Shri Gomafhi Wires, Plot No. 247/ANewRamnath Road, Madurai (T.N.) VERSUS Diamond Wires Pvt. Ltd. Through- Director, Sri Devendra Agrawal, S/o. Late Shri Daulatram Agrawal, PlotNo.- 293 Part, Sector-C, Urla Industrial Complex, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA ^- ^' RESPONDENT ^tttJ.HITPF^ 1MB1 ^SET -]ll'4l<yl'4, (s-flly'is, I°<<VII'M^< J^S.^.tl....^.9^....•W^200 'S' v ((acf ^i R-ii* ^ISBliqi *'9t TRITOT ^lfel 311^1 Shri Sunil Otw'ani, Advocate Shri Prafuli Bharat, Advocatf Heard learned counsel appeajing for the parties. As per Shri Otwani, lear^ied counsel appearing for the petitioners, a bare pemsal of the { filed by the respondent h,erein is jbarred by limitation in view of Ai-ticle 14 of the Limitation Act. preliminary issue because the quest On the other hand, Shri respondent herein submits that statement of accouat annexure witl by the respondent herein alongwith and which was filed before the tri^l court alongwith the plaint. A 1 bare pemsal of plaint read with A^inexure R-l/1 (the statement of account fiied alongwith pliant befi qipiferiN imHf 4'fetA ^reeR ^•aiRlH 3)1^1 for the petitioners. for the respondent. lainf would reveal with the suit This issue can be decided as a jon is pure question oflaw. . Bharat, learned counsel for |the petitioner suppressed the t the plaint wliich has been filed ^heir return as (Annexure R- re the trial court) would reveal ^ra^T^sfNg^in^r^Rf^rr^—FS/95—11/2008—i,oo,ooo. /-'. T 1 ~T5Er'<<l'4IC1'4, fffll'H'IS, MCII'M^ ••^200§ an^r T^T C^iF^i^; ira; 3ii??r anra? i^ that the transaction between the p| account, therefore, the'suit ofthe .1)' 1 of the Limitation Act and thef limitation. Therefore, it is clear that as j this issue of limitation can be decl on plaint allegations read with sta^ plaint which has been filed by the| R-1/1, and therefore, it is clear thal before tfae trial regarding limitatil pfdiminary issue because the issu^ othepvise not disputed. In this r^gard, only question remains for determination ofthe court is whel|her as per plaint allegation read with statementofaccount, Article Ijapplies orArticle 14? At this stage, Shri Otwani aflmits Annexure R-l/1 as it is as part of plaint, and is ready to argu^ the issue of iimitation based on ^NOTN •wrcffif'ft'A'rfSnsR ^a(RCT3)I^!f irties is iiiutual, open and current espondent is governed by Article •efore, the suit is not barred by )er submission ofboth the parties, Ided by arguing the matter based |ement of account, annexure with [plaintiff respondent as Annexure t the issue involved in the inatter ^n caii certainly be decided as is a pure que.stion law. facts are ??re^t? ^^N 5^n^T(ra:Tf^n^—FS/95—11 /2008—i,00,000. + "^.•."% '•y--':^ t':. \ T^ "41<41<'<'>1,yal'M'Ko, l»«fliyy,< ^^(^^...sS±^.... sn^i '^^ (Ti?i3^(T) an^l ^l ft-)i<* wnsn^igCTw Sahu -R. plaint allegations read vvith Aj In view ofthe above submil ;lear that the question of limitation by iraming preiiminary issue ancf equired, therefore, it would be in ttj ;ourt shall decide the issue No. 5 fr. n accordance vvith law. Therefore, ihall decide the issue No. 5 as preli aw after hearing both the parties. With this obsen-'ation, this p )rder asto costs. qiRfi'l'fl-l ^MvS^ ftist <Fiitei< ^ajfiCTaii^; inexure R-l/1. sion made by the parties, it is ;an be decided by the trial court for this further evidence is e interest ofjusti^e that the trial imed by it as preliminaiy issue, it is directed that the trial court ninary issue in accordance vvith itition staads disposed of. No Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge ^NN S?«IRRT(mTWR'—FS/95—1 1 /2008—1,00,000.