1/4 37-wp-8554-22(j).odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 8554 OF 2022 1. Sangharatna Sureshrao Ramteke aged about 25 years, Occ. Education 2. Sureshrao S/o Bisanji Ramteke, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Retired, Both R/o Prabhuddha Nagar, Masala Road, Wardha, Tah & District Wardha … Petitioners // VERSUS // Ruprao Bakaramji Khare, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Apar Qardha Vasahat, Amravati, District Amvarati ...Respondent Ms. Kirti Satpute, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.G.Bhamburkar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : PRAVIN S PATIL, J. DATED : 18th FEBRUARY, 2025. ORAL JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order below Exhibit 76 dated 9th November, 2022 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Special Civil Suit No. 204 of 2013. 3. The petitioners had filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Special Civil Suit No. 204 of 2013 Sknair 2025:BHC-NAG:1653 2/4 37-wp-8554-22(j).odt by raising the ground that suit filed for declaration, injunction and rectification of sale-deed No. 2036 of 2007 dated 18th July, 2007 by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation and therefore same deserves to be rejected by invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The respondent/plaintiff tendered his reply to the application filed by the petitioners/defendants and opposed the application by stating that the issue of limitation is mixed question of law and therefore suit cannot be dismissed, unless evidence of the parties is recorded in the suit. 5. Learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 9th November, 2022 by recording the finding that in paragraph 10 of the suit, plaintiff has specifically pleaded that there is continuous cause of action as well as threatening by the defendants in the month of January, 2013 to sale the portion of suit property gives cause of action to file the suit. Hence, by the order dated 9th November, 2022, rejected the application. 6. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff brought to the notice of the Court that Sknair 3/4 37-wp-8554-22(j).odt petitioners/defendants filed counter claim in Special Civil Suit No. 304 of 2013 and the same is pending along with main suit. It is also brought to the notice before trial Court, the evidence of Ruprao Khare is also recorded. 7. After going through the record, it is clearly seen that the suit and the counter claim are pending before the trial Court and the matter is at the stage of evidence. Furthermore, the trial Court has rightly recorded that the issue of limitation can be framed and decided along with other issues in the matter. As such, the findings recorded by the trial Court that counter claim cannot be rejected by invoking the provisions contemplated under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and issue of limitation being a mixed question of facts and law, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. 8. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the respondent rightly stated that the matter is pending since 2013 and is at the stage of evidence, therefore the learned trial Court can be directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of six months. Sknair 4/4 37-wp-8554-22(j).odt 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute this factual position and stated that issue of limitation needs to be dealt with by trial Court while deciding the suit. In view of aforesaid, I proceed to pass the following order. i. The order below Exhibit 76 dated 9th November, 2022 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Special Civil Suit No. 204 of 2013 is hereby confirmed. ii. Learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati is directed to frame additional issue of limitation along with other issues and take endeavour to decide the Special Civil Suit No. 204 of 2013 (Ruprao Vs. Sangratna and others) within a period six months from the date of producing this order before him. iii. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. [PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] Sknair