B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) IN this Revision petition the order of the learned Sub Judge, Medak in O. S. No. 96/90 regarding I. A. No. 74/93 dated 19-3-1993 is challenged. Although the respondents have been notified of the petition, no representation is made on their behalf. Only Mr. L. Prabhakar Reddy, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has advanced his arguments in support of his contentions raised in the petition.

( 2 ) THIS revision petition arises this way : The petitioner filed suit O. S. No. 96/90 for recovery of Rs. 4,27,000. 00 with costs and such other reliefs as the court deems fit as against the defendants who are the respondents in this case. The suit was resisted by the respondents. The basis of the suit was the right of the plaintiff to recover the amounts towards dastband which was ultimately allowed in W. P. No. 1407/88 after a long battle and on the plea that although the petitioner was entitled to get such amount, he was paid only Rs. 10,659. 00. The amount was awarded ultimately by passing the G. O. Ms. No. 902 dated 19-7-1988 and under the circumstances, the respondents having withheld such legitimate claim of the petitioner, were liable to pay interest to the petitioner in addition to other benefits. That appears to be the gist of the plaint allegations. In para 11 of the plaint, the petitioner set up the cause of action for such a claim during the year 1959 initially when the cash grants were abolished and thereafter by virtue of the G. O. passed by the Government on 19-7-1988 after the disposal of the writ petition and therefore, he was entitled to recover the interest on such amount for the period from 1-4-1959 to 1-10-1990.

( 3 ) THE respondents resisted the suit while denying the allegations made in the plaint inter alia contending that the suit had no cause of action and the cause of action set up in para 11 was not true. The trial court settled the issues, called upon the parties to take up the trial on such issues. Plaintiff s evidence was closed on 29-7-1991 and when the case was posted for the evidence of the present respondents who are the defendants on 5-3-93, they filed I. A. No. 74/93 contending that the suit of the petitioner was barred by limitation in view of Articles 18 and 25 of the Limitation Act since the claim of the petitioner was exceeded the period of three years. This application was opposed by the petitioner. After hearing both the sides and after considering the material before him, the learned Sub Judge came to the conclusion that the suit claim for the period beyond 8 months was barred by limitation under Article 25 of the Limitation Act and therefore, dismissed the suit, however, directing the plaintiff to amend the relief in the plaint to restrict the claim for the period which was permissible in law and to proceed accordingly.

( 4 ) IN this petition, the order of the learned Sub Judge is challenged on various grounds. Mr. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Advocate for the petitioner has formulated the following contentions in the form of postulations of law: 1) The Learned Sub Judge following a wrong procedure in dealing with the matter without recourse to the procedure contemplated under Order 14 Rule 2a of C. P. C. without first of all determining whether the issue in question was to be tried as a preliminary issue or not 2) The learned Sub Judge was wrong in dealing the question of limitation as a pure question of law to dispose it of as a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2 (1), C. P. C. 3) The learned Sub Judge was not legally right in dismissing the suit while the application of the respondents was for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 (d), C. P. C. 4) The order of the learned Sub Judge is illegal, without jurisdiction and has caused great injustice to the petitioner.

( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner and after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal implications flowing therefrom, this court is convinced

Click Here to Read the rest of this document