( 1 ) AS common question of law and fact arises for consideration in these revision petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) REVISION petitioner herein is the defendant in O. S. Nos. 103, 106, 104, 107 and 105 of 1999 respectively on the file of the junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda. In those suits, the petitioner-defendant herein filed la. Nos. 279, 282, 280, 282 and 281 of 2000 respectively under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking rejection of the plaints on the ground that the reliefs sought for therein are barred by limitation. Those applications were dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge by separate orders. Against those orders, the present revision petitions are filed.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, sri O. Manohar Reddy, strenuously contended that the learned Junior Civil judge has erred in dismissing the applications. In his submission, the Court below ought to have framed a preliminary issue regarding limitation and should have rejected the plaints after consideration of the same.

( 4 ) I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The questio