Chandrakant Shivraj Tiwari And ORS. v. Anjanikumar Devidin Tiwar And ORS.

Urmila Ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 189 OF 2018 Chandrakant Shivraj Tiwari and ors.

.. Applicants Vs.

Anjanikumar Devidin Tiwari and ors.

.. Respondents Mr.Sanjiv A.Sawant, for the Applicants.

Ms.Aditi Athawale I/b Ms.Yogita Deshmukh, for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 & 9 to 12.

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

DATE :16th SEPTEMBER 2019 P.C. :

.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants.

2.

By this Application, applicants - original defendants No. 1 to 3 are challenging the order passed below Exhibit 28 contending that Suit fled by plaintifs is not within limitation. The trial Court rejected the application holding that prima facie Suit appears to be within limitation. It is further observed that the 1/3

defendants did not specifcally plead under which article of the Limitation Act, Suit would be governed. Further it is observed by the trial Court that defendants have not made out a case that Suit is not within limitation. I fnd that the application Exhibit 28 was fled only raising an objection regarding Suit not fled within limitation. Moreover, in the said application prayer is made for framing preliminary issue in terms of Section 9-A and Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

3.

Considering that the application was restricted to the objection to the Suit being not within limitation, the trial Court has for the reasons recorded rejected the application. Insofar as the valuation of the Suit is concerned, it is always open for the trial Court to correct the valuation at the later stage if found necessary. Moreover, a specifc application was not made by the applicants objecting to the valuation of the Suit. In these circumstances, without interfering with the impugned order, in my opinion, if proper application 2/3

is made by the applicants as regards the maintainability of the Suit on any of the grounds available, the same can always be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law and without being infuenced by the observations made in the impugned order.

4.

In this view of the matter, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Insofar as issue of limitation is concerned, the same obviously be decided on the basis of the evidence that may be led by the parties. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) 3/3