JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is the defendant in Title Suit No.294 of 2013, is aggrieved of order dated 06.12.2017 by which her preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by the law of limitation has been rejected. 2. Title Suit No.294 of 2013 has been instituted by the plaintiffs for a decree for declaration that the sale-deed dated 15.04.2005 is illegal and void, for fraud has been played upon them. A decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property has also been sought in the plaint. In the pending suit an application under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit was filed. This application has been dismissed by the trial judge on the ground that the issue of limitation being a mixed question of law and fact can be decided on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and not before that. 3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on admitted facts the plaintiffs have instituted the suit on 10.06.2013 for a declaration on sale-deed dated 15.04.2005 and while so, the suit is barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. At the outset, it needs to be indicated that under Article 59 of Limitation Act, 1963 the period of limitation to cancel or set-aside an instrument or decree for the rescission of a contract would start to run from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set-aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him. The plaintiffs have pleaded that it was only in the first week of March, 2013 when the defendant came to the residence of plaintiff no.1 and declared her exclusive possession over the suit property. The plaintiffs have asserted that by that time the property comprised under the sale-deed dated 15.04.2005 was in their possession and a certified copy of the sale-deed dated 15.04.2005 was supplied to them only on 30.03.2013. The plaintiffs have asserted that by that time the property comprised under the sale-deed dated 15.04.2005 was in their possession and a certified copy of the sale-deed dated 15.04.2005 was supplied to them only on 30.03.2013. Stand taken by the plaintiffs is that the defendant played fraud and without paying the consideration amount got the sale-deed dated 15.04.2005 executed, whereas the defendant has taken a position that in the sale-deed itself there is a recital that the consideration amount has been paid to the vendors. 5. Apparently, the aforesaid disputed facts cannot be decided without permitting the parties to lead evidence on that issue. The trial judge has rightly observed that the issue of limitation raised by the defendant is a mixed question of law and fact which can be decided only during the trial. 6. In the aforesaid facts, finding no infirmity with the impugned order dated 06.12.2017, the writ petition is dismissed.