JUDGMENT The non-applicant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- as damages for breach of contract dated 24.5.1982 by the applicants/defendants. The applicants/defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement. Para 14 of the written statement reads thus: "It is specifically denied that the cause of auction arose on 28.1.1985. The plaintiff has very specifically pleaded that the breach of alleged agreement occurred on 19.9.1982 and in the plaintiff's notice dated 4.2.1983 by which it claimed compensation within 15 days of the date of receipt of the notice dated 4.2.83. So computing the period of limitation of three years from 19.9.1982 and/or 4.2.1983, this suit is obviously barred by the law of limitation." Thus, the defendants have raised the plea of limitation contending that in view of the notice served by the plaintiff on 18.2.1983, the suit as it is filed on 7.5.1987 is hopelessly barred by limitation. The trial Court framed issues. One of them is whether the suit is barred by Iimik1lion. The trial Court has held that it is just and proper to consider this question of limitation along with the full trial of the suit and cannot be considered as a preliminary issue. This finding of the trial Court is under challenge in this revision. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as the plaintiff demanded payment of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as damages for breach of the contract, for which the suit was filed, and demanded payment of the amount within 15 days from the date of service of notice, cause of action accrued to the plaintiff from that date itself and, therefore, the suit on the face of it is barred by limitation and this question could have been decided by the trial Court as a preliminary issue. The allegations made by the defendants regarding issuance of the notice dated 4.2.1983 and its service on the defendants on a particular date is not admitted by the plaintiff. Thus, it requires recording of evidence to prove whether the said notice was issued by the plaintiff on 4.2.1983 to the defendants demands damages for breach of contract dated 24.5.1982 or whether such a notice was issued on the date mentioned in the written statement or whether that notice was served on the defendants on 18.2.1983. Thus, it requires recording of evidence to prove whether the said notice was issued by the plaintiff on 4.2.1983 to the defendants demands damages for breach of contract dated 24.5.1982 or whether such a notice was issued on the date mentioned in the written statement or whether that notice was served on the defendants on 18.2.1983. This will be a pure question of fact which will be required to be determined by the Court after recording of the evidence of the parties. Only after arriving at a finding, on appreciation of evidence, the law of limitation shall be applied on the facts found. In Ramdayal v. Pannalal ( 1979 JLJ 720 ) a Full Bench of this Court has held that an issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court can be tried as a preliminary issue only if it can be disposed of without recording any evidence. If the issue of jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact requiring recording of evidence, the same cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. Decision on the question of limitation can only be decided after recording of evidence, as this question is a mixed question of law and fact, and therefore cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. No other point was argued. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no substance in this revision which is dismissed without any order as to costs. 1979 JLJ 720 (FB) relied on.