JUDGMENT : 1. Since both the revisional applications arise out of the same suit, being Title Suit No. 495 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to “as the said suit’), pending before the Court of the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta and the facts involved in the adjudication of disputes in these revisional applications are same, both the revisional applications were heard together and the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. The revisional application, being CO 3013 of 2016 is at the instance of the defendant no.1 in the said suit challenging the order dated July 28, 2016 passed by the learned Court below. By the said order dated July 28, 2016 the learned Court below adjourned the hearing of the applications of the defendant no.1, for acceptance of her written statement and for deciding a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called as “the Code”, and fixed the application filed by the plaintiff for appointment of Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code on August 24,2016. 3. Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant no.1-petitioner in the first revisional application, strenuously contended that from the averments made in the plaint filed in the said suit and particularly the reliefs claimed in prayers (b), (f) and (i) of the plaint, it is evident that the suit filed by the plaintiff on April 16,2014 is barred by the lacks of limitation. He further contended that although in the plaint it is the case of the plaintiff-opposite party that he had filed the suit on the strength of the order dated March 14, 2002 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.17661 of 2012, but the said order cannot be construed to have any overriding effect on the provisions contained in the Limitation Act, 1963. He urged that Section 3 of the Limitation Act enjoins a mandatory obligation on a Court to decide the point of maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation, even though the same is not raised by the defendant. Mr. Mitra next contended that it is well settled principle of law that the point of limitation touches jurisdiction and if a suit is barred by the laws of limitation, the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. Mr. Mitra next contended that it is well settled principle of law that the point of limitation touches jurisdiction and if a suit is barred by the laws of limitation, the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. He next referred to an order dated July 12, 2016 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 15835 of 2016 arising out of an application filed by the defendant no.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, where the Court directed that the question of limitation in respect of filing of the suit by the plaintiff is kept open. According to Mr. Mitra, since the defendant no.1 in the said suit has already raised a contention that the suit is barred by limitation, the learned Court below is required to decide such issue as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule of the Code. On these grounds Mr. Mitra urged that the learned Court below erred in passing the order dated July 28,2016 thereby adjourning the hearing of the applications filed by the defendant-petitioner for acceptance of her written statement and under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code and fixing the application for appointment of receiver for hearing. 4. However, Mr. Dulal Dey, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 in the first revisional application and the petitioner in the second revisional application, submitted that no doubt by the said order dated May 11,2016 the Supreme Court has kept the question of limitation open, but since the plaintiff in the said suit had filed the said suit under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code long time back the learned Court below has not committed any error of law in fixing the hearing of the said application and adjourning the aforementioned applications filed by the defendant no.1. He further submitted that by an order dated March 20, 2015 the learned Court below had already closed the right of the defendant no.1 to file her written statement in the said suit and her subsequent application for recalling of the said order dated March 20,2015 and to allow her to file her written statement is yet to be decided by the learned Court below. According to Mr. According to Mr. Dey, this Court should allow the revisional application CO 3139 of 2016, filed by the plaintiff in the said suit, by directing the learned Court below to dispose of the application for appointment of Receiver within one month from date. 5. Mr. Dey, however, submitted that while deciding the application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code, the learned Court below will be required to decide the contention raised by the defendant no.1 with regard to the point of limitation. 6. In reply, Mr. Roy appearing for the defendant no.1 submitted the facts in which the defendant no.1 was delayed in filing her written statement have already been explained in the application for leave to file written statement on behalf of the defendant no.1. 7. I have considered the materials on record, as also the submissions of Mr. Mitra and Mr. Dey, appearing for the respective parties to these revisional applications. 8. With regard to the grounds urged by the defendant no.1 in her applications filed before the learned Court below praying for, recalling of the order dated March 15, 2016 and for obtaining leave to file her written statement the same are to be decided by the learned Court below on the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties in the said application. However, undisputedly, by the said order dated May 11, 2016 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) 15835 of 2016 the Supreme Court has specifically kept the question of limitation with regard to the maintainability of the suit open. It is the settled principle of law that appointment of Receiver in a suit is an equitable relief and in order to obtain an order for appointment of Receiver the applicant, apart from substantiating the well settled legal grounds, has also to prove that his/her prayer is not vitiated by any delay. This for the settled principle of law that delay defeats equity. 9. In view of the above well settled principle of law and the order dated May 11, 2016 passed by the Supreme Court, even if the learned Court below decides to hear the application of the plaintiff under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code, it is needless to mention that the learned Court below has to decide all the contentions raised by any of the defendants of the suit, including the point of limitation. 10. 10. At this juncture, Mr. Dey appearing for the plaintiff in the said suit submitted that leave may be granted to the plaintiff to file his written objection to both the applications filed by the defendant no.1 for recalling of the order dated March 20, 2015 and Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code within September 20, 2016. Such prayer is allowed. The plaintiff shall file his written objections to the pending applications of the defendant no.1 within September 20, 2016; reply, if any thereto, be filed within September 23, 2016. 11. Mr. Anirban Roy, learned advocate appearing for the defendant no.1 submitted that leave may be granted to the defendant no.1 to file a supplementary affidavit to the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code within September 20, 2016. Such prayer is allowed. Let, the defendant no.1 file her Supplementary Affidavit to the plaintiff’s application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code, within September 20, 2016; reply, if any thereto, be filed within September 23, 2016. 12. The learned Court below is requested to decide all the applications filed by the respective parties, as expeditiously as possible, subject to the convenience of the business of the Court. 13. With the above directions, both the revisional applications, being CO 3013 of 2016 and CO 3139 of 2016 stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order to costs. 14. The learned advocates appearing for the respective parties will be at liberty to communicate the gist of the order to the learned Court below. 15. Let, a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be made available to the learned advocates of the respective parties on the usual undertaking.