https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313787 Limitation must be examined by the court on its own motion under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Trial Court erred in overlooking an apparent limitation issue on the face of the plaint. The delay in challenging the ex parte decree ought to have been condoned because refusing to do so would have preserved a decree vulnerable for non-consideration of limitation. An ex parte decree could not be sustained where the plaint itself disclosed a possible bar of limitation, there was no written acknowledgment extending time, and the plaintiff had not adduced oral evidence; Order VIII Rule 10 CPC was not justified on a mere prima facie view. en-us Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 May 2024 18:05:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313787 Limitation must be examined by the court on its own motion under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Trial Court erred in overlooking an apparent limitation issue on the face of the plaint. The delay in challenging the ex parte decree ought to have been condoned because refusing to do so would have preserved a decree vulnerable for non-consideration of limitation. An ex parte decree could not be sustained where the plaint itself disclosed a possible bar of limitation, there was no written acknowledgment extending time, and the plaintiff had not adduced oral evidence; Order VIII Rule 10 CPC was not justified on a mere prima facie view. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313787