1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.1.2006, passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court. The Learned Single Judge has held that the question of limitation could be tried as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned Single Judge did not allow the Appellants to claim the benefit of Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground that the appellant had not proved the ‘institution’ of Suit No.6734/1994 at the Bombay City Civil Court to be "in good faith". The sequence of facts in the case are as follows:

i) On 17.03.1958, the Golwalas, who were the original lessees of the suit property, entered into an agreement with Respondent No.1 ,under which he was granted right of development of a portion of the suit property. These development rights were transferred in favour of his company, ie, Respondent No.2. Pursuant to the power of attorney executed in favour of Respondent No.1 by the Golwalas, Respondent No.1 and/or 2 completed the construction of the building ‘Advent’ and sold flats therein to various persons on ownership basis. In 1966, the flat purchasers formed a co-operative society registered in the name of Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., the Appellants in the present case.

ii) Following this, an I.O.D. and commencement certificate for ‘Divya Prabha’ were granted by Respondent No.7 to Respondent No.1. The R.C.C. framework was constructed till 1968 by Respondent No.1 and 2. On 10.4.1968, notices were issued by Respondent No.7 to stop work and to remove the unauthorized 10th floor slab and other irregularities. These notices were challenged by the Respondent No.1 in Suit No.6551 of 1968. The aforesaid suit was returned for presentation to the proper court and thereafter the same was abandoned by Respondent No.1 and 2. iii) In 1968-69, serious disputes arose between the Golwalas and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 regarding the failure of consideration and the breaches of terms and conditions of the agreements entered into between them. Notice was given to the B.M.C. and a public notice given in the newspaper regarding the termination of the Power of Attorney given to the Respondent no. 1 by Golwalas. On 25.03.1969, the original lessees assigned all their leasehold interest in the plot of land. On 25.03.1969, the Appellants by an unregistered agreement handed over the swimming pool on the property to Khurshed and Lily Golwala. On 28.06.1972, Respondent No.7 confirmed the Appellants as lawful assignees of the suit property. On 6.10. 1980, Respondent No.2 is alleged to have transferred his right in ‘Divya Prabha’ to Respondent no. 3 by virtue of alleged writing styled as Heads of Agreement. In August 1987, Respondent No.3 started gunniting work only on the R.C.C. shell framework of ‘Divya Prabha’. On 14.11.1987, Respondent No.7 issued a stop work notice to Respondent No.3, who challenged the same as being ultra vires and illegal and prayed for an injunction in the City Civil Court. Application for revalidation and/or further construction made by Respondent No.3 was rejected by Respondent No.7. 6 iv) On 14.10.1994, an agreement is alleged to have been entered into between Respondent Nos. 1-6 and Respondent No.8, whereby the former have purported to sell ‘Divya Prabha’ in favour of the latter. On 8.11.1994, the Appellants filed a suit No.6734 of 1994 for reliefs prayed therein in the Bombay City Civil Court. On 28.06.1996, the first revalidation of the I.O.D and commencement certificate was granted valid upto 19.06.1997. On 29.01.1997, the Appellants amended their plaint to challenge the aforestated revalidation. On 10.3.1997, an injunction was granted in suit No.6734 of 1994 with regard to the said revalidation. On 16.10.1997, the Respondent Nos. 1-6 and Respondent No.8, were allowed by the order of a Lea