Limitation as a preliminary issue: admitted plaint facts can establish the bar, and later representations do not extend time.

Limitation may be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) CPC where the plaint admits the foundational facts needed to determine when limitation began, so no evidence is required. On the facts stated in the plaint, the predecessor knew of and objected to the relinquishment deed in 1991, but the suit was filed only in 2000. Article 136 of the Limitation Act applies to execution proceedings and had no application to the declaratory relief claimed; the suit was therefore governed by the limitation period for declaration, and later representations to authorities did not extend time. The challenge was consequently treated as barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the issue of limitation could be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of admitted facts in the plaint. (ii) Whether the suit for declaratory relief was barred by limitation, and whether Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or Articles 17 and 65 thereof had any application.

Issue (i): Whether the issue of limitation could be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of admitted facts in the plaint.

Analysis: Limitation is ordinarily a mixed question of law and fact, but it can be taken up as a preliminary issue where the foundational facts necessary to determine the starting point of limitation are admitted in the plaint. In such a situation, the court is entitled to decide the bar of limitation without recording evidence, because the issue then becomes one of law arising from admitted facts.

Conclusion: The issue of limitation was validly decided as a preliminary issue on the basis of the plaint averments.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for declaratory relief was barred by limitation, and whether Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or Articles 17 and 65 thereof had any application.

Analysis: The plaint itself showed that the predecessor-in-interest knew of the relinquishment deed and had objected to it in 1991, while the suit was filed only in 2000. The prayer was declaratory, with the further relief being only consequential. Article 136 concerns execution proceedings and had no application. The suit, being one for declaration based on the challenge to the relinquishment deed, was governed by the limitation period applicable to declaratory relief, and the repeated representations to authorities did not extend time. The alternative reliance on Articles 17 and 65 was also rejected.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the challenge to the decree failed.

Final Conclusion: No ground was found to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below, and the decree of dismissal of the suit was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the plaint itself supplies the material facts needed to determine the commencement of limitation, the court may decide limitation as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b); and a declaratory suit filed beyond the applicable limitation period cannot be saved by subsequent representations to the authorities.

---