https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429069 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. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2022 19:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429069 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429069