JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. Mr. Ramchander Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant is present. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit was decreed under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) but the learned Court has not considered the fact that the suit was barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the defendant was in possession of the property since 1991. The learned counsel submits that the defendant being in possession of the property since 08.08.1991, the suit for recovery of possession was barred by the law of limitation and the learned Court did not frame any issue on the point of limitation. 4. The learned trial Court took only one question for determination i.e., as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for any relief. The learned trial Court considered the materials on record and held that the plaintiff had right, title and interest in connection with Khata No. 54, CS Plot No. 660, R.S. Plot No. 1301 area 09 decimals. The learned trial Court has also set-aside the sale-deed bearing no.7226 dated 17.08.2006 and held that the plaintiff was entitled for recovery of possession with respect to the land involved in the sale- deed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court, but the learned appellate Court has failed to consider that the suit was filed seeking a declaration of plaintiff's right, title and interest over schedule – A land by cancelling the registered sale-deed no. 7226 dated 17.08.2006 and the schedule- A land was only in connection with the land involved in the sale-deed. 6. The learned counsel has submitted that the Court has granted relief with respect to the declaration of title in connection with 9 decimals of land although the suit property for which the declaration was sought was only with respect to 5 decimals of land. The learned counsel has submitted that the Courts have granted relief to the plaintiff which was beyond the relief sought for. 7. The learned counsel has submitted that the Courts have granted relief to the plaintiff which was beyond the relief sought for. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal is admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law: "Whether the learned Courts were justified in granting relief to the plaintiff beyond 5 decimals of land which was involved in sale-deed no. 7226 dated 17.08.2006 in connection with which the relief was prayed for in the suit?" 8. At this, Dr. Bhanu Giri, Advocate, has submitted that he has received Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.1 and he undertakes to file the Vakalatnama within a period of one week from today. 9. Accordingly, no notice be issued to respondent no. 1. 10. The appeal has abated as against respondent no.4 vide order dated 05.09.2024. 11. Let notice be issued to respondent nos. 2 and 3 through the concerned police station. The notice should be accompanied with a copy of the memo of appeal and also its enclosures. The requisites etc. be filed by the appellant by 13 th January 2025. 12. Let the records of Title Suit No. 58/2009A and also records of Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2014 be called for from the learned Court concerned. 13. Post this case on 04 th March 2025 under the heading "For Final Disposal" in the supplementary cause-list. 14. Let this order be communicated to the learned Court concerned through 'FAX/email'.