JUDGMENT

M.S.SONAK,J. - Heard Mr. A. Sardessai for the Appellants.

2. The record indicates that the Respondents have been duly served in this matter. However, in our order dated 17.02.2021, we had directed the Appellant to take further steps in the context of the issue as to whether the Appellant could avail of the benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act particularly when there was an order for return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule X of the C.P.C.

3. Now, we find that all parties had already been served in this matter. Despite service, it is true there is no appearance put in by the Respondents. This is an appeal of the year 2013 questioning the impugned order dated 28.02.2013, by which the learned Trial Judge has rejected the plaint by resorting to the provision of Order 7 Rule XI of the C.P.C. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter can proceed now that service was completed upon all Respondents, even without the necessity to go into the issue of applicability of section 14 of the Limitation Act at this stage itself.

4. The impugned order suggests that the learned Trial Judge has rejected the plaint on the ground that it was barred by Limitation and