JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2017, passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No.111/2016, whereby the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2016, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. III, Hamirpur in Civil Suit No.61 of2010, has been affirmed. 2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff before the original Court. The parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before learned trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- against the defendants on the premise that he was owner-in-possession of land comprised in Khata No.52 min, Khatauni No.55 min, Khasra No.97(new) and 77 (old) (for short, “the suit land”). The defendants had utilized some part of the suit land for construction of a public road. According to the plaintiff, the road remained in existence for 28-29 years and thereafter on the objection of the plaintiff, the same was diverted by the defendants through some other land in the village. As per plaintiff, he had sought information under the Right to Information Act in the year 2009 (for short, “the RTI Act”) from the defendants and from the information so supplied to him, he came to know that the road had been diverted by the defendants. 4. In para-4 of the plaint, it was specifically averred that the plaintiff had earlier also filed Civil Suit against the defendants, which was dismissed by learned trial Court. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of dismissal was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, however, with the condition that in case the defendants wanted to widen the road over Khasra No.97, the same would be done in accordance with law. 5. Another plea raised by the plaintiff was that in the previous suit, the defendants had admitted their possession over some part of Khasra No.97. According to the plaintiff, since he had been deprived from the user of substantial portion of suit land for long period of 28-29 years, defendants were liable to compensate him and for such reasons a decree for Rs.4,00,000/-as damages was claimed. 6. The defendants by way of written statement, denied the claim of the plaintiff. They denied to have made any admission in the earlier suit. 6. The defendants by way of written statement, denied the claim of the plaintiff. They denied to have made any admission in the earlier suit. The filing of suit was objected to on the ground that the same was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). It was contended that the road i.e. ‘Tikkar to Manoh via Jakhyol’ was constructed in the year 1981 through Khasra No.553-560. No part of Khasra No.97 was utilized or encroached. As per the defendants, Khasra No.97 was recorded as ‘Share-aam Rasta’ in the records of rights and only for such purpose in the previous suit, it was submitted that part of the land in Khasra No.72 was in possession of the HPPWD. Further, the defendants had submitted that ‘Share-aam Rasta’ was in existence even prior to the construction of road. 7. The plaintiff filed replication and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint, after denying the averments made in the written statement. 8. Learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/-, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD. 4.Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 5. Relief.” 9. Issues No.1 and 4 were answered in negative, whereas issues No.2 and 3 were answered in affirmative. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before learned District Judge, Hamirpur under section 96 of the Code was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 17.04.2017, passed in Civil Appeal No.111/2016. 10. Learned trial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that since the plaintiff had admitted in cross examination that the road was diverted away from his land in the year 2002-03, existence of cause of action to file the suit in the year 2010 was not established. 11. Learned first appellate court while affirming the findings returned by learned trial court further held that the plaintiff had failed to produce evidence suggesting the nature and extent of damages suffered by him. 11. Learned first appellate court while affirming the findings returned by learned trial court further held that the plaintiff had failed to produce evidence suggesting the nature and extent of damages suffered by him. It has also been held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of any cause of action to file the suit against the defendants. 12. The instant appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law vide order dated 6.1.2018: “1. Whether both the courts below have misread, misinterpreted and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties especially Ex. P-1 Jamabandi for the year 2004-05, which has materially prejudiced the entire case of the appellant/plaintiff? 2. Whether the findings given by the Ld. Courts below are perverse their being contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and the same has resulted into impugned decisions?” 13. On the basis of material on record, as shall be discussed hereafter, I find the necessity to frame an additional question of law as under: 3. Whether the Courts of first instance and appeal have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law by omitting to adjudicate on the issue of limitation? 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 15. At the outset it is noticed that neither the defendants raised the objection as to limitation before learned trial court nor any issue was struck to that effect. This is being observed in view of the availability of following material on record: 15.1 In the plaint, the plaintiff had averred that he was absolute owner of suit land. The defendants had constructed a road named “Tikker Brahmna to Manoh via Jakhyol road” in the year 1980-81 over land comprised in Khasra No. 553 (old) and 560(new). Later the defendants had widened the said road by utilizing suit land. Thereafter the plaintiff had filed a suit for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant with respect to the suit land. In the said suit defendants had filed the written statement and had admitted to have possessed the suit land. The suit filed by the plaintiff was stated to have been dismissed by learned trial court as also the learned first appellate court. In the said suit defendants had filed the written statement and had admitted to have possessed the suit land. The suit filed by the plaintiff was stated to have been dismissed by learned trial court as also the learned first appellate court. It had further been averred that in the meantime the defendants had diverted the road from some other land. 15.2 The plaintiff did not make any specific mention as to when the suit land was possessed/ utilized and when was the same left by defendants by diverting the road from some other land. 15.3 Plaintiff simply made a mention that in 2009 he came to know about said fact from the information received by him under RTI Act. 15.4 On the other hand, a specific case of the defendants in written statement was that the road was diverted in the year 2002-03. In replication, the plaintiff has not controverted this fact. 15.5 That being so, it cannot be believed that the plaintiff was not aware about the diversion of the road, more particularly, when it had been proved on record that on the suit land plaintiff had his shop. Further, the plaintiff categorically admitted in his cross examination that the road had been diverted through some other land during the year 2002-03. 15.6 The plaint was instituted by the plaintiff on 8.4.2010. 15.7 Article 87 of the Limitation Act reads as under Article 87 For compensation for trespass uponimmovable property. Three years The date of thetrespass 15.8 Even by application of ancillary Article 113 of the Limitation Act the limitation would be three years from the date cause of action had arisen. 16. Notwithstanding the above omission, Section 3 of the Limitation Act obligates the Court to adjudicate on the issue of limitation even if the same is not specifically raised by the parties, which reads as under: 3. Bar of limitation.—(1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. 17. Bar of limitation.—(1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. 17. Though, this Court could still frame an issue on the question of limitation and remand the case back to learned trial Court, but in my considered view, such an exercise will not serve any purpose or the interest of justice keeping in view the long pendency of litigation and the adjudication proposed to be made by this court on the substantial questions of law already framed in the instant appeal. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code, I am deciding the issue of limitation myself. 17.1 Accordingly, it is held that the suit of the plaintiff ex-facie was barred by limitation. 18. The substantial question of law No.3 is answered in affirmative by holding that both the courts have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by law. 19. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff had earlier also filed a suit with respect to the suit land seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. On 22.3.2024 this Court had passed the following order during the proceedings of instant appeal: “Learned Counsel for appellant shall produce before this Court the judgment in Civil Suit earlier filed by the appellant to restrain the respondents from encroaching over the suit land, which is said to have been dismissed on 26.6.2006.” 20. In compliance to aforesaid order, appellant has filed CMP 12230 of 2024 seeking leave to place on record a certified copy of judgment dated 26.6.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (I) Hamirpur and also a copy of judgment dated 1.7.2008 passed by learned District Judge Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2006. 20.1 It is the admitted case of the parties that earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial court as also by learned first appellate court by the judgments, the copies of which have been sought to be placed on record now, therefore, there is no legal impediment in taking such documents on record. 20.1 It is the admitted case of the parties that earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial court as also by learned first appellate court by the judgments, the copies of which have been sought to be placed on record now, therefore, there is no legal impediment in taking such documents on record. The necessity of said documents, as reflected from order dated 22.3.2024 passed by this Court and also keeping in view the entire matter in dispute, has been felt by this court for proper and complete adjudication. 21. Though the pleadings in CS No. 340 of 1998 are not on record, however, from perusal of aforesaid judgments it can be inferred that the plaintiff had filed the suit in respect of land comprised in Khasra No. 72 with the averments that the defendants while widening the road existing on Khasra No. 553 were trying to extend the same through Khasra No.72, owned and possessed by the plaintiff. It was the case of plaintiff that one Sukh Ram had encroached upon Khasra No. 553 and as a result thereof attempt was being made to extend the road through Khasra No. 72. Thus, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction had been sought against the defendants. 22. Learned trial Court while deciding the earlier suit i.e. Civil Suit No.340 of 1998 had held that plaintiff had not been able to establish his allegations and hence was not entitled for the relief. In appeal filed by the plaintiff, learned appellate Court had held that there was no encroachment made on the suit land by the defendants rather the encroachment was by private individuals. 23. The aforesaid judgments though have attained finality, however, will not operate as res-judicata between the parties for the reason that the adjudication therein was only with respect to the facts as existed in the year 1998 when the plaint was instituted, whereas the alleged period of unauthorized use of suit land in the present case includes subsequent period also. 24. Noticeably, the defendants in the instant case had taken a specific objection in the written statement that the suit was barred under order 2 rule 2 of the Code, but no issue was framed on the plea so raised by defendants. It appears that the defendants did not press framing of such issue. 24. Noticeably, the defendants in the instant case had taken a specific objection in the written statement that the suit was barred under order 2 rule 2 of the Code, but no issue was framed on the plea so raised by defendants. It appears that the defendants did not press framing of such issue. Even the subsequent conduct of defendants evidences the giving up of above noted plea as the defendants had not made any attempt to place and prove on record the pleadings filed by the parties in CS No. 340 of 1998. 25. Further, the plaintiff had not placed on record any material to prove the extent of utilization, if any, of suit land by the defendants. There also is no material on record to suggest the manner in which the damages have been calculated by the plaintiff. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the jamabandi for the year 2004-05 exhibited on record as Ext. P-1 to assert that out of the suit land comprised in Khasra No.97, 4 Biswas of land was shown in the nature of “Gair Mumkin Rasta”. The plaintiff cannot take benefit of above entry in the said jamabandi to contend that this proved the possession of the defendants over 4 Biswas of land belonging to the plaintiff. Rather, the said document has to be read against the plaintiff because in column of possession the plaintiff himself has been shown to be in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to take benefit of only a part of the document Ext P-1, that suits him. 27. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that the defendants have specifically admitted by way of information supplied under the RTI Act the factum of their possession on part of suit land. A reference has been made to document Ext. PW-3/A. The said document will again not help the case of the plaintiff for the reason that it has been clarified in the document itself that the information was being provided on the basis of information collected by the Field Staff on casual spot inspection. It suggests that there was no proof of utilization of the suit land by the defendants. 28. It suggests that there was no proof of utilization of the suit land by the defendants. 28. Additionally, it can be seen that the plaintiff at no point of time made any attempt to get the suit land demarcated so as to prove the factum of encroachment and the extent thereof, if any, by the defendants. 29. The findings of fact returned by the Courts below are borne from the material on record. In my considered view there is no illegality or perversity committed by both the courts in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 30. The substantial questions of law Nos 1 and 2, as noted above, are answered accordingly. 31. In result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.