1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3033 OF 2010 Govind Narhari Dangre & ors ..Petitioners V/s. Balkrishnam Ramchandra Dangre ..Respondents (Since deceased) through legal heirs Mr.K.J.Patil, Advocate, for the Petitioners None for the Respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The Petitioners are the original Defendants. A suit for possession of immovable property on title has been filed by the original Plaintiffs. An application was made in the said suit by the Petitioner for framing an additional issue of bar of limitation. By the impugned Order, the said application has been rejected. Apart from the fact that the Petitioners/Defendants have not pleaded adverse possession in 2 the Written Statement, there is no specific plea of bar of limitation in the Written Statement. The impugned Order is purely interlocutory in nature which is capable of being challenged in an Appeal which may be preferred by the Petitioners against the decree passed in the Suit, if the same be adverse the Petitioners. In any event, at any stage, if the Trial Court finds that the issue of bar of limitation arises, the trial Court is duty bound to consider the same in view of the mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Subject to what is observed above, the Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)