ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The subject-matter of these appeals is a common judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposing of the five writ appeals. By the impugned order the High Court has in effect set aside the order passed by the Registrar under Section 62 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 adding the present respondents as parties to the claim cases of the appellant. 3. The appellant carries on the banking business. Claiming that Respondents 2 and 3 were members of the appellant, the claim was filed by it against Respondent 1, a firm and Respondents 2 and 3 on the ground that the firm had borrowed a sum of Rs 1 crore from the appellant Bank and had failed to repay the same despite demands. These facts are relevant for the purposes of ARC No. 68 of 1999 filed by the appellant before the Registrar. Substantially, similar facts formed the basis of the other four claims made by the appellant Bank against the respondent named therein. 4. The five applications were filed on 17-9-1999. Applications were made for impleading the present respondents in the five cases by the appellant Bank as respondents between January and May 2001. All the applications were allowed by the Registrar on 12-2-2001. The decision of the Registrar was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The respondents preferred five separate appeals, which, as we have already noted, were disposed of by the impugned judgment. 5. The only ground on which the High Court has allowed the appeals is that the claims of the appellant against the respondents were barred by limitation. Reliance has been placed on Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for arriving at this conclusion. 6. The appellant has contended before us that the issue of limitation had not been raised at any stage of the proceedings either before the Registrar or before the learned Single Judge or in any of the memoranda of writ appeals. It is stated that had the issues been raised, the appellant could have produced evidence to show that the claim of the appellant against the respondents was well within the period of limitation. It is stated that had the issues been raised, the appellant could have produced evidence to show that the claim of the appellant against the respondents was well within the period of limitation. It is also submitted that the order of the Registrar was appealable under Section 76 of the Act and that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition at all in view of the alternative remedy available. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Division Bench was justified in concluding that the respondents should not have been added as parities because the appellant's claim against them was on the basis of the pleading barred by limitation. It is submitted that on the basis of the pleadings available before the appellate court, it is clear that even according to the appellant itself, the claimant's cause of action arose on 1-6-1997. Therefore, it is submitted that the Division Bench did not err in entertaining the plea of limitation even though it had not been raised at any stage of the proceedings. 8. The plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and when the factual basis was yet to be determined, the High Court should not have exercised its power under Article 226 and embarked upon an exercise of judicial review. Indeed the High Court's order does not disclose the factual basis for its conclusion. We, therefore allow these appeals on this short ground alone without deciding the other questions raised by the parties. 9. The appeals are accordingly allowed. We may, however, make it clear that it will be open to the added respondents to raise the contention in the proceedings before the Registrar that the claim of the appellant against the respondents is barred by limitation. We emphasise that the order of the Registrar adding the respondents as parties to the proceedings will not be reopened. We also make it clear that we have not decided any issue on the merits of the cases. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.