( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-7-2005, passed in IA No. 258 of 2005 in OS no. 13517 of 2003, by the XIII Junior Civil judge-cum-I Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad, refusing to condone the delay of 48 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed in OS No. 1221 of 2000. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 3 ) THE only contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-plaintiff is not a Government company, and as such, it is not entitled to claim the benefit of Article 112 of the limitation Act, 1963, and if the general period of three years for filing the suit is taken, the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff would be barred by limitation. The point of limitation being a question of law, the Court below ought to have decided the same, but by dismissing the application, it has committed an error, and he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the crp be allowed. ( 4 ) I am unable to agree with this submission of the petitioner. The respondent- plaintiff being a Central Government company is entitled to the benefit of article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Be that as it may, it is not as if the Court below has decided the suit itself on merits. The Court below while dismissing the application, observed that the other facts alleged in the petition can be decided at the time of trial after considering the evidence and documents of both the sides. There being no positive findings made by the Court below touching the merits of the matter in favour of the respondent-plaintiff i am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned order. Hence, the CRP has no merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.