-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 226 of 2024 Sultana Perween, Wife of Najir Ansari, aged about 58 years, Resident of 407, Mani Tola, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002. ..... … Petitioner Versus Sekh Salamat @ S.K.Salamat, Son of Late Sekh Zameer, Resident of Millat Colony, Kanke, P.O. & P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834006. ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Azam, Advocate. For the sole O.P. : Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, Advocate ------ 05/ 30.01.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 19.02.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ranchi, in Original Suit No. 230 of 2020, whereby, the petition filed under Order-XIV, Rules-1 and 2 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said petition in the original suit was filed under Order-XIV, Rules-1 and 2 of the CPC for deciding the said petition as a preliminary issue. He submits that the learned court has wrongly rejected the same in view of that the said order may kindly be set aside and a direction may kindly be issued to decide the preliminary issue first. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party by way of referring the written statement of the defendant, who is petitioner herein submits that no ground is taken, as to which date, the limitation will be counted. He submits that only to delay the proceeding, in a case, instituted for specific performance, the said petition has been filed. 5. The learned trial court has rightly held that the preliminary issues can only on two grounds, one of the jurisdiction and two barred -2- by any law. It is well settled that the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and that can be decided by way of leading the evidence. 6. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the said impugned order and further to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, all the issues are required to be decided simultaneously in the trial. As such, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-