WP Ne.3I368»'29>98 mm 1-rm mm as"! my nmwm A V I. Vasudgv, 4' S/o srsgresmmg » Riga Company, 24;': na;T.n.r;v%.:;us1a2%TV_ .. % " __2. - V' -.S",'o;_ " . '-'§a;¢'vc:;':,sg1§a.;11no5, R/o'c.'r.s. .995, Hag, Belmtam. 4. Szifiageah, -- (By fihveereah nuuanmm. And: 1.
IA.
9}? Ne.3l368f2008
S10 $n’.Yeshwm1t Kcrkm’,
Agc:47 years,
Ooczfiusincsmm,
Rio (3.’I’.S.No. 1 1005,
Sadashfw timer,
Bclgaum.
Sri.I-ianitsa _ -_
5/0 Nagosa Naikwaé, Vv
Afied about 5’5 —
R/o ‘
siime flees’-as.’ V’ 7
Win Sri.’i:!aaé1a’ee:nimts3a’iV3V::ikwad,
about’-59 yeam,
‘ Rio 1156′,~..Sa1afGafi,
1B.’
“31 o ..StiwE; t8& Nakwad,
Agmdahmzt 44 years,
0w:. ,
A’ ‘ago 1156, samwaama,
Belgaum.
Sri.Ani1,
S10 Sdflmawma ,
Apd about 37 years,
Occtflufismss, E
‘WP No.333$I20(B
Rio 1156, Sara!’
Smfiur, Belgaum.
2. Sri.Kas1’n2sab, = ‘_
SS/o Nlohiraazzl .. _ A
Agcdfiqbr, R/o 46?”?/A, V ». 2
‘fhis petition is find under £ufick:s 226. and cf the
Conatflaxtion of India the”-ozvd\cr dated
21.10.2008 passed by lei Add]. C°w.il Judge
(Sr.Dn.) Begam at Issue No.1 fin
O.S.!’~Io.32/1999 vidc to dismiss the
suit m being by ”
the Court mairlgc ‘ —-
1. ci¢.ma<%%' pmfirred this writ pcum"
' the; om§:r"af 'the trial couxt passed on IA»! hoklém
harmed by limitation. The mavterial on
° V on IA»-I evidence Wm recorded am then
% the has recorded a finding that the suit is notbarmd
by court has reooxticd evidence on all imues
the suit camz: to be dismisfi cm the gonad of
T by time" . The same was challenged in appeal. In the
xappeal, the judmcnt and dmree was set aside on the ground
WP msxsjss/2092
that then: was no issue reganiing limitation K
issue was framed and the matter
remand, the trial Court insieadpf _
issues and dispose of the suit, elder Vt
recording its finding 0II1jf'..Qn *
treating it as a the said onier,
the defendant isimfexe x A" "
2. Older 1?: 23$ that the court to
pmnounee pmv1d’ -es no ‘
that a on a pnahminmy issue, the
Court 1:; pfevisions of sub-Iuh: (2), pronounce
t ‘gunfight a31’issi:¢s;e’e’sub me (2) pmvides that when issues
arise in the same suit, and the Court is
efe’pit£ieat’!J35tt’1.j€.tiecaaeoranyparttkezeofmaybed1e of
‘es; an only, it may tzy that issue fiat ifthfi issue
the of the Court or a bar to the 311%
by any law for the time being in fame, and for that
may, ifit thinks fit, postpone the settlemem of the
4otherissuesunti1afierthatissuehasbeende1aenn%,and
may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision an that
W”? No.33368l20″08
issue. It is settled law that the isstm Ieganiing
mixed qucsfion of law and rm angi”‘it*is E f V
from the order that the evidcnm
and on appmcxh tion of the V
11316 that the suit is not _ Wfxén evidence
was recorded on an mm’ non’ bciag
a mixed qu:estion of’. 1 ought to have
mconicd its of the suit one
Way or 9t:§.1e.1j;::- 1Ec:gahty’ = ‘ in weanling
its 092$? limitation. In View cf the
mandate 2, in the facts efthis case,
it win he gppiupfiame 1;, direct the max’ Court tn man: its
dispose of the suit on mcrits. In
being ciecmwd & the defendants chasm
‘ to it is open for them ta challenge the
suchanappcal. Rescrvhzg such %rty, min
sal-3
juclge
Jmj –