((-1-)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.449 OF 2006 Shantilal Bhikchand Surana Petitioner versus Kantilal Bhikchand Surana & ors. Respondents Mr.A.S.Rao for petitioner. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 6th February 2006 PC : 1. In my view, a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below in not deciding an issue pertaining to limitation at the preliminary stage or at the instance of a defendant who has filed written statement. The application itself is misconceived because that proceeds to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 clause (d) of the CPC which the learned Judge has rightly disallowed the petitioner- defendant to invoke, in the facts of this case. Needless to ((-2-)) state that the order passed would not prevent the petitioner from requesting the Court below to frame the issue of limitation and try it with other issues. Petition dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)