Writ jurisdiction and limitation: a court should not decide a mixed question of law and fact without an established factual foundation.

A writ court should not determine limitation where the plea is a mixed question of law and fact and the factual foundation has not been established. Here, the High Court decided in writ jurisdiction that the claim against added parties was time-barred without disclosing the factual basis for that conclusion, although limitation had not been properly determined before the Registrar or the Single Judge. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have exercised Article 226 jurisdiction on that issue, and the matter could still be raised before the Registrar in the pending proceedings. The High Court's limitation ruling was unsustainable, and the appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in deciding, in writ jurisdiction, that the claim against the added parties was barred by limitation when the factual basis of limitation had not been determined.

Analysis: The plea of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. The factual foundation for deciding limitation had not been established before the Registrar or the Single Judge, and the High Court's conclusion did not disclose the factual basis on which it proceeded. In such circumstances, the High Court ought not to have exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide the limitation issue. The question could, however, still be raised before the Registrar in the pending proceedings.

Conclusion: The High Court's decision on limitation was unsustainable and the appeals were allowed in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court should not decide a limitation issue, which is a mixed question of law and fact, without an established factual foundation.

---