ORDER

1. The defendant is the appellant before this Court. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit in question claiming an amount of 1,87,769.40 along with interest as damages for non-delivery of the goods to the consignee. The goods in question were carried by the appellant to London.

2. Apart from other defences which were taken on behalf of the appellant in the suit, a specific defence was taken that the suit itself was barred by limitation. According to the appellant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Articles 10 and 11 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall not be attracted, rather, the period of limitation has to be calculated in terms of Article 30 of the Second Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.

3. The learned Judge decided the question of limitation as a preliminary issue and came to the conclusion that the suit was not barred by limitation. This appeal has been filed against the said order.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent took an objection that the learned Judge should not have decided the question of limitation as a preliminary issue, especially when that question did not arise, merely on the basis of allegations made in the plaint. This