Sikkim High Court
CRP/2/2014 of Deepak Kumar Rai Vs Naina Kala Sharma and Others on 25 August 2014
COURT OF SIKKIM CIVIL JURISDICTION CRP No. 02/2014 Deepak Kumar Rai vs. Naina Kala Sharma & Ors. BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.K. JAIN 01. 25.08.14 Present: M/s. A . K. Upadhyaya, Sr. Advocate with Binita Chhetri and Aruna Chhetri, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
CIVIL JURISDICTION
CRP No. 02/2014 Deepak Kumar Rai vs. Naina Kala Sharma & Ors.
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.K. JAIN
01. 25.08.14 Present: M/s. A. K. Upadhyaya, Sr. Advocate with Binita Chhetri and Aruna Chhetri, Advocates for the Petitioner.
…
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
This Revision Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 16.06.2014 passed by learned District Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi in Title Suit No. 43 of 2013, whereby the objection of defendant-petitioner to dismiss the suit, being barred by limitation, has been rejected, observing that the said objection is premature at this stage, as the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, which can be decided at an appropriate stage.
The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that from the contents of plaint itself, it is clear that the suit is barred by law of limitation and should have been dismissed under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, he fairly and frankly admitted that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. He also submitted that pm/jk there are some other legal issues involved in the suit. He, therefore, submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw this Revision Petition, with liberty to file an Application under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIV of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, at appropriate stage.
The prayer appears to be reasonable, therefore, it is allowed. The Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty, as prayed for.
Chief Justice 25.08.2014
Index : Yes/ No Internet : Yes / No