JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)- I, Jamshedpur in Original Title Suit No. 68 of 2018 whereby the petitions dated 27.01.2019 and 03.01.2020 filed by the petitioner praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation, have been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased three flats being flat nos. 505, 506 and 507 situated at 5th floor, Akashdeep Plaza Complex, Golmuri, Jamshedpur developed by Akashdeep Builders (I) Pvt. Ltd. from its previous owner Somnath Das-the authorized representative of M/s. Sanchayani Computers Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent herein) through registered sale deed dated 28.06.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner faced many obstacles at the instance of the respondent as well as the builder of Akashdeep Plaza Complex for getting separate electricity connection in the said flats. Hence, he filed W.P.(C) No. 4612 of 2004 before this Court. The respondent accepted the sale of aforesaid flats to the petitioner by filing counter affidavit in the said writ petition (Annexure-2/1 to the present C.M.P.). However, it, in connivance with the builder filed suit being Original Title Suit No. 68 of 2018 for cancellation of sale deed no. 3005 dated 28.06.2004. The petitioner appeared in the suit and filed petitions dated 27.01.2019 and 03.01.2020 raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of suit as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short, “the Act, 1963”), however the court below dismissed both the petitions vide impugned order dated 05.02.2020. It is further submitted that on bare perusal of all the documents annexed with the present C.M.P., it would be clear that the respondent was well aware of sale deed No. 3005 dated 28.06.2004 from the date of execution itself. It is also submitted that after the sale of flats in question, the petitioner and the respondent were issued notices by the office of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Jamshedpur vide letter nos. 260 and 262 respectively both dated 06.01.2005 in respect of purchase and sale of the flats in question. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner as well as the respondent appeared and admitted the execution of sale deed. The respondent also admitted receiving of consideration money against the sale of aforesaid flats. Thereafter, the proceeding against the petitioner and the respondent was dropped by the Income Tax Authority.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamshedpur. It appears that the learned court below has rejected the petitions dated 27.01.2019 and 03.01.2020 filed by the petitioner holding that in view of Section 18 of the Act, 1963, the period of limitation starts running from the date of knowledge and the plaintiff in his pleading has mentioned that the suit has been filed on 26.04.2018 after having knowledge of the fact on 15.02.2018. It has further been held that the issue as to from which date the period of limitation starts running, is a mixed question of law and fact and is not a pure question of law. Hence, the learned court below did not think proper to frame the preliminary issue on the aforesaid point.

5. For better appreciation of this case, it would be appropriate to refer few judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court explaining the scope of interference with the order of courts/tribunal by the writ court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. In the case of Gulshera Khanam v. Aftab Ahmad reported in (2016) 9 SCC 414, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“33. Likewise, when we peruse the impugned judgment, we find, as rightly urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, the High Court did not