Short Note : 1. This revision is directed against an order by which the suit of the plaintiff-non-applicant, which was filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, has been decreed. 2. The only point which the learned counsel for the defendant-applicant has argued before me is the point of limitation. The plaintiff has alleged dispossession as having taken place on 17th January 1971. A look at the plaint goes to show that the plaint was first presented in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal, on 30th March 1971. It was then ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court on 1st November 1972. The plaint was also returned on the same date. The plaint was filed on 15th December 1972 in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class-I Bhopal. Excluding the time during which the plaintiff was prosecuting the suit in wrong Court, the suit as instituted in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class-I, was within limitation. Learned counsel for the defendant-applicant wants to urge before me that the plaintiff did not prosecute the suit in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class-II, in good faith and that he himself wanted return of the plaint which was returned to him and represented by him in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class-I. All these questions are questions of fact. Had the defendant raised the plea of limitation, the plaintiff would have proved his due diligence and good faith in prosecuting the suit in the wrong Court previous to the representation of the plaint in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class-I on 15th December 1972. Pure question of limitation can certainly be raised at any stage. But a question of limitation which requires going into the facts cannot be raised for the first time in revision. Revision dismissed.