MANORMA SINHA Vs. KRISHNA SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS -petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2005 passed by the 2nd Munsif, Patna in T.S. No. 22 of 2000 dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the plaint, has preferred this application.

(2.) DEFENDANTS -petitioners filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. They prayed for the decision on the aforesaid question as a preliminary issue.

(3.) MR . Keshav Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contends that the Court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not deciding the question of limitation as preliminary issue and as such, the order impugned is fit to be interfered with by this Court in exercise 1/1/2013 Page 98 Suman Kumar Verma Versus Union Of India of its revisional jurisdiction. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Saleem Bhai and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2003)1 SCC 557.