JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Service has been effected on the defendant/ respondent but he has not filed any objection against the delay condonation application (CLMA No.11956 of 2015). Hence, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant on the application and considering the grounds stated in such application, supported in the enclosed affidavit, the delay of 55 days’ in moving the appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application stands allowed accordingly. 2. The Original Suit No. 20 of 1995 was filed on 31.01.1995 seeking to declare the sale deed dated 29.11.1989 as illegal and void, having no effect on the plaintiff; in addition thereto, the direction was also sought against the defendant for removal of his illegal possession/construction over the spot, which was resisted by way of filing the written statement. The averments of the parties lead to the formulation of issues including the Issue No.4 depicting as to whether the suit was barred by time limitation, as envisaged under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This provision postulates three years limitation for instituting the suit, either from the date of execution of such sale deed or from the date when the such execution came into notice of the plaintiff. 3. Learned Trial Judge, by deciding the preliminary issue against the plaintiff, rejected the plaint vide order dated 22.08.2013 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Appeal No. 146 of 2013 filed by the plaintiff challenging such order also failed on 14.05.2015, where-against the present second appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Ramesh B. Desair & others v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & others’ reported in (2006) 5 SCC Page 638, wherein it has been held that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. So, in light of above ratio propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court, it was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below ought not to have rejected the plaint without rendering any opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead their evidence on factual aspects of the matter and only after such evidence, the question of suit being barred by limitation, as indicated above, could have been decided. 6. 6. I am unable to agree with the said contention of learned counsel for the appellant for the following reasons:- (i) This precedent is not applicable in the present controversy because the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court is not absolute in every circumstance and goes irrespective of the clear law, as applicable in the instant case. 7. Further, even if, it is presumed for a moment that the plaintiff could know about the execution of sale deed at such point of time, which was within three years of the date of filing the suit, then also it is altogether against the documentary evidence, available on record. The certified copy of the impugned sale deed, which the plaintiff got issued from the Registrar Office, shows that he was provided such copy on 28.11.1991, although to get such copy from the office of Registrar, he had already submitted the Stamp Papers which he purchased on 25.11.1991. So, it is evident that he had ample and sufficient knowledge as on 25.11.1991 and at any rate on 28.11.1991. Now, if three years’ time is counted from that date, then the suit must have been instituted up till 28.11.1991, but he filed the same not just with the delay of few days but after more than three years on 31.01.1995, wherefor he has not submitted any explanation. If such suit is accepted for adjudication, then the Court feels that the same would be in utter violation of the specific statutory provisions of law, as contemplated under Schedule 59 of the Indian Limitation Act. 8. In view of what has been set forth above, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present controversy. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at the threshold itself.