Order: By this review petition, the petitioners-appellants pray for review of the judgment dated 22.03.2007, passed by this Court, dismissing the second appeal, by ordering the C.M.P. No. 437 of 2007, filed by them seeking to raise the question - whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation? an additional ground in the second appeal. 2. This Court holding that the appellants neither before the Court below nor before this Court raised the plea of limitation, dismissed the second appeal. 3. It is the contention of the appellants that after filing of the second appeal, they filed application in C.M.P. No. 437 of 2007, praying to permit them to raise as additional ground in the second appeal - whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation, but without ordering this application, but this Court without considering the said application, has erroneously dismissed the second appeal, and the said error being an error apparent on the face of record, is required to be reviewed, and prayed that the present applications be ordered and the judgment passed in the second appeal be reviewed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the questions that arise for consideration in the present application is whether the appellants can be permitted to raise as additional ground the question - whether the suit is barred by limitation, which ground they have not raised either before the trial Court or before the appellate Court? and whether by non-consideration of the application filed by the appellants seeking to raise the said ground as additional ground in the second appeal, this Court committed any error, much less an error on the face of the record? 5. Upon a perusal of the entire material available on record, it becomes clear that the appellants have not taken the plea of limitation before the trial Court, in fact, there is no pleading to such an effect in their written statements, and in the absence of any such pleading, the trial Court has not framed any issue in that regard, and adjudicated and issues framed therein and decided the suit. The appellants, have not raised this ground even before the first appellate Court, and even though they raised this ground in the second appeal, they have not raised this in the main second appeal, but sought to raise this subsequently by filing an application, which unfortunately, this Court did not take into consideration, and dismissed the second appeal. Given the fact that the question as to whether the suit is barred by limitation, which the appellants sought to raise in the second appeal by filing an application subsequently, as additional ground, is a mixed question of law and fact, the same cannot be adjudicated conclusively, and more so without an issue framed and evidence adduced in that regard. Unless and until parties raise the issue of limitation in their pleadings and adduce evidence, it cannot be conclusively said whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. In fact, the appellants, as stated above, have neither raised the plea of limitation before the trial Court nor before the first appellate Court nor have they adduced any evidence in that behalf, and it is for the first time, they sought to raise in the second appeal. The plea of limitation, the law is well settled, being a mixed question of law and fact, is required to be adjudicated based on facts and the evidence to be adduced. The apex Court in Banarsi Das v. Kanshi Ram1, having considered similar issue held: The High Court has overlooked the fact that even upon the argument addressed before it on behalf of Kanshi Ram, the question of limitation was not one purely of law, but was a mixed question of fact and law and, therefore, it was not proper for it to be raised for the first time in argument. We are satisfied that what the High Court has done has caused prejudice to some of the parties to the suit and on that ground alone, we would be justified in setting aside its decision. If the High Court felt overwhelmed by the provisions of S. 3 of the Limitation Act, it should at least have given an opportunity to the parties, which supported the decree of the trial court to meet the plea of limitation by amending their pleadings. If the High Court felt overwhelmed by the provisions of S. 3 of the Limitation Act, it should at least have given an opportunity to the parties, which supported the decree of the trial court to meet the plea of limitation by amending their pleadings. After allowing the pleadings to be amended, the High Court should have framed an issue and remitted it for a finding to the trial Court. Instead of doing so, it has chosen to treat the pleading of one of the defendants as conclusive not only on the question of fact but also on the question of law and dismissed the suit. It is quite possible that had an opportunity been given to the defendants they could have established, in addition to proving the dates on which the summonses were served, that the suit was not barred by time because of acknowledgements. In the course of the discussion, the High Court has said that it was not suggested before it by anyone that the claim was not barred by reason of acknowledgements. Apparently, no such argument was advanced before it on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant Banarsi Das because the counsel were apparently taken by surprise and had no opportunity to obtain instructions on this aspect of the case. We are clearly of opinion that the High Court was in error in allowing the plea of limitation to be raised before it particularly by defendants who had not even filed a written statement in the case. We do not think that this was a fit case for permitting an entirely new point to be raised by a non-contesting party to the suit. 6. Since the ground, namely whether the suit is barred by limitation, which the appellants sought to raise as an additional ground, is a mixed question of law and fact, dismissing of the second appeal, without considering the application filed by the appellants seeking to raise the said ground as additional ground, would not in any manner, elevate the grievance of the appellants to that of an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review of the judgment by this Court in exercise of its power under Order XLVII, Rule 1 r/w Section 114 C.P.C. 7. For the foregoing review petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed.