Limitation in revenue recovery must be decided on the real controversy, with remand required when the key issue is left unexamined.

A larger Bench must confine itself to the real controversy placed before it, especially where the pleadings and reference narrow the dispute to limitation. Here, the decisive question was whether the revenue recovery demand was barred by limitation, and that issue was not examined by the Division Bench. Since the Bench instead moved away from the basic controversy and did not determine the limitation question, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration limited to limitation alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Division Bench, while dealing with the matter, failed to confine itself to the real controversy relating to limitation and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration on that question.

Analysis: The dispute before the Single Judge had essentially narrowed to the question whether the demand raised through revenue recovery was barred by limitation. The material before the Court showed that the question whether breach of contract had been admitted was not the central controversy requiring adjudication at that stage. The Division Bench, however, did not examine the limitation issue, even though that was the basic issue arising from the pleadings and the order of reference to the larger Bench. In these circumstances, the proper course was to set aside the Division Bench decision and remit the matter for consideration confined to the limitation question.

Conclusion: The appeal succeeded. The impugned Division Bench order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration limited to the issue of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A larger Bench must confine itself to the real issue requiring decision, and where the decisive question is not examined, the matter may be remitted for fresh consideration on that issue alone.

---