Heard Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed questioning the order dated 4.7.2009 passed by learned Sub Judge VIII, Saran at Chapra in Misc. Case No. 90 of 2008 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to reject the application filed by the opposite parties 2nd set-petitioners questioning the maintainability of the Miscellaneous Case on grounds of jurisdiction as also on grounds of limitation.

3. The learned Court below while holding that the issue of limitation shall be considered after evaluation of the evidence led by both sides, has by the same order held the Miscellaneous Case maintainable.

4. Mr. Parbat, learned counsel for the petitioners has questioned the impugned order on grounds that the issue of limitation ought to have been settled at the first instance and if the Miscellaneous Case was found to be barred by limitation, there was no occasion for the learned Court below to force the opposite party to undergo the rigours of the trial.

5. In so far as the issue of limitation is concerned, perusal of the order impugned manifests that the same has not been re