JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) - This petition is filed by defendant No.3 against the order dated 23.7.2014 by which his application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 and Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short ‘the CPC’] has been declined. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 6.10.1999, alleged to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1, with regard to house No.385, constructed over the land measuring 100 sq. yards situated at Sultanwind Sub Urban Abadi Azad Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar and for further declaration that the sale deed dated 24.7.2002 executed by defendant No.1 through his attorney in favour of defendant No.3 qua 3/4th share of the aforesaid property is also null and void and further for the declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 5.4.2006, executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.6 is also null and void qua 3/4th share of the plaintiff as the defendant No.3 has got no right, title or interest in the aforesaid property. The plaintiffs also prayed for permanent injunction in order to restrain the defendant no.6 from alienating 3/4th share in the aforesaid property owned by the plaintiffs by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease, transfer, exchange etc. 3. It is alleged that the defendant had taken a preliminary objection that the suit is barred by limitation. However, issues were framed and an application was filed by defendants No.3 & 6 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation, which was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the issue regarding rejection of plaint has already been framed however, the present application has been filed to treat issue of limitation as preliminary issue and also to frame another issue “whether present suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Court below has erred in dismissing his application on the ground that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and could be decided after taking evidence of the parties. It is submitted that the trial Court has committed a patent error of law in framing the preliminary issue with regard to limitation as suggested. It is submitted that the trial Court has committed a patent error of law in framing the preliminary issue with regard to limitation as suggested. It is also submitted by him that the suit is hopelessly time barred and earlier also it was withdrawn without seeking permission of the Court. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, I am of the considered opinion that issue No.4 is an omnibus issue regarding maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation and another issue as suggested by the petitioner is not required to be framed at this stage, therefore, prayer made by the petitioner for framing of additional issues in terms of Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC is rejected. Insofar as other prayer of the petitioner for treating issue of limitation as preliminary issue in terms of Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC is concerned, the trial Court has rightly observed in its order that the said issue is a mixed question of law and cannot be treated as preliminary issue. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————