Respondent filed the suit against the revision petitioners for recovery of money in which they filed their written statement on 01-07-1997 contesting the claim. After trial of the suit was taken up, revision petitioner filed a petition seeking permission of the Court to file additional written statement making a counter claim, which was allowed by the trial Court by its order dated 13-11-03. Questioning the said order respondent preferred CRP No. 6251 of 2003 to this Court. By the order dated 10-12-2004, a learned Single Judge of this Court, while setting aside the order of the trial Court, remitted the case to the trial Court for fresh disposal on the question of limitation and pecuniary jurisdiction for considering the maintainability of the counter-claim. After remand the trial Court dismissed the petition by the order under revision on the ground of limitation, without going into the question of pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence, this revision.

2. The main contention of Sri Koka Raghava Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners is that since the order of remand directed the trial Court to give a finding on the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the