HARIKISHANDAS BAJORIA Vs. E I D PARRY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 in Title Suit No. 53 of 1974 have carried this revision application against the ordei of the learned Trial Judge finding the suit under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Civil P. C. to be within the period of limitation, the issue relating to limitation having been adjudicated as a preliminary one. When the revision application was placed before one of us for hearing, it was directed to be placed before a Division Bench for final disposal.

(2.) On 13-5-1970, plaintiff (opposite party No. 1) filed Money Suit No. 339 of 1970 in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Cuttack for recovery of the dues on promissory notes executed by opposite parties 2 to 5 and obtained an ex parte ad interim order of attachment before judgment. Petitioners had purchased a house from opposite parties 3 to 5 under a registered sale deed dated 20th of March, 1970, for valuable consideration and when they found that the order of attachment covered this property also, they asked for lifting of the attachment. Their application being Miscellaneous Case No. 255 of 1970 was allowed on 21-12-1971 and the property was directed to be released from attachment. Plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 filed Civil Revision No. 93 of 1972 in this Court on 30th of March, 1972, and that application was ultimately dismissed on 22nd of March, 1973, with the following observations :--

(3.) Limitation for a suit of this type is prescribed under Article 98 of the Limitation Act of 1963 and that Article runs thus:--