JUDGMENT 1. - Respondent No. 1-United Commercial Bank, Branch Office, Pipar City, District Jodhpur filed a Civil Suit under 0.37, r. 1, CPC for recovery of loan advanced to the defendants. The revisionist M/s. Laxmi Cement Industry filed an application under 0. 37, r. 5, CPC for leave to defend. That application was found to be time barred but delay was condoned by the learned court-below. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that the application moved by the revisionist under O. 37, r. 5, CPC is frivolous and fictitious. Learned trial Court, after analytical discussion of the materials on record has recorded the aforesaid finding. The trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons in rejecting the application moved by the revisionist under O. 37, r. 5, CPC for leave to defend. The finding of learned trial Court to the effect that the application moved by revisionist under O. 37 r. 5, CPC is frivolous and fictitious is eminently just and proper and does not require interference under the amended Section 115, CPC. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist is not disputing the applicability of Sections 118 and 120 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is apparent on the face of record that the revisionist himself has admitted that he had signed atleast at 15 places over the documents of the Bank. According to him, his signatures have been obtained fraudulently by Shri Om Prakash. The learned trial Court has given cogent reason to disbelieve the aforesaid allegations with which I am at one. 4. After such a long interval, no action has been initiated against aforesaid Om Prakash for his deceitful and fraudulent act by the revisionist. When money was sought to be recovered from the revisionist, he was all of sudden awakened from his slumber and started to allege that he has signed on 15 places on the documents of the Bank for loan at the behest of one Om Prakash. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has invited my attention towards sub-sec. (2) of Section 10A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 which was newly inserted w.e.f. 15.2.84. A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid provision reveals that the said provision is not attracted in the present controversy. 6. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present suit is barred by limitation. (2) of Section 10A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 which was newly inserted w.e.f. 15.2.84. A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid provision reveals that the said provision is not attracted in the present controversy. 6. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present suit is barred by limitation. No such plea was raised before the learned trial Court to the effect that the suit was barred by time. Now, this question is being raised for the first time in revision with ulterior motive to delay the recovery of loan from the revisionist, which is not acceptable. 7. The question of limitation is not to be pleaded, the Courts of law are supposed to take notice of the question of limitation without being raised by either of the parties. Learned trial Court is directed to take judicial notice of Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, which runs thus : "3. Bar of limitation : (1) Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. (2) For the purpose of this Act- (a) a suit is instituted, (i) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer; (ii) in the case of a pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made, and (iii) in the case of a claim against a company which is being wound up by the Court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to the official liquidator; (b) any claim by way of a set off or a counter claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted (i) in the case of a set off or on the same date as the suit in which the set off is pleaded. (ii) in the case of a counter claim, on the date on which the counter claim is made in Court; (c) an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that Court." 8. (ii) in the case of a counter claim, on the date on which the counter claim is made in Court; (c) an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that Court." 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine with a direction to the trial Court to examine itself the question of limitation if so involved in the suit filed by the Bank under 0. 37, CPC.Revision disposed of with directions. *******