The court highlighted the importance of raising objections regarding the valuation of the suit properties before the evidence is taken and emphasized that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and should be decided based on the evidence adduced in the trial.

1. The first defendant in O.S.No.3736 of 2000 on the file of the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is the petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition. The first respondent in the above Civil Revision Petition filed the said suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 for the following reliefs:-

“A. for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 and 3, their agents, servants, men, representatives or any body claiming through or from them not to interfere with the plaintiff's property in putting up Gate, Compound Wall, Development of the Plots, Usage of Plots in any manner the plaintiff wants for Plot Nos.21 and 22, II Street, Chockalingam Nagar Colony, Gopalapuram, Vellala Teynampet, Chennai 600 086 as morefully described in the schedule hereunder and thus render justice;

B. for the declaration that Clause 3 of the Partition Deed dated 29.10.1906 relating to drawing of water from the Well in Plot No.22, Gopalapuram, Vellala Teynampet, Chennai – 600 086, as morefully described in the Schedule hereunder by using the irrigation method of Yetram, etc., to do cultivation is not value and cannot be enforced as it is hereby prohibited in the City of Chennai in view of the prohibition of cultivation in the City by Legislation and also by other laws and thus render justice.”

2. The petitioner herein is contesting the suit by filing a detailed written statement, as follows:-

The petitioner earlier filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code in I.A.No.12277 of 2000 to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is hit by res judicata and the said application was allowed, but on appeal, the order was set-aside and the further appeals to this Court and to the Apex Court were also dismissed. Thereafter, after framing of issues, the suit was taken up for trial. Proof affidavit of P.W.1 was filed and the trial was taken up for recording the evidence of the witnesses. When the suit was part heard, by virtue of the orders passed in the Transfer O.P.No.361 of 2006, the suit was transferred from the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. On 19.02.2007, the plaintiff's side evidence was closed, after examining P.W.1. The witnesses on the side of the defendants were examined and their side of evidence was closed on 12.06.2007 and thereafter, matter was posted for arguments. On 09.07.2007, the plaintiff's counsel advanced his arguments and it was adjourned to 12.07.2007 and on that day, the defendants engaged a new counsel and he sought for an adjournment. Thereafter, by consent of both the parties, issue No.7 was recasted and additional issue was also framed. Thereafter, after four adjournments, the defendants filed an application for reception of a document which was allowed and the defendants were recalled and the documents were marked. In the meantime, an application was also filed by the first defendant to transfer the suit to some other Court. Therefore, the arguments could not be concluded. As the Presiding Officer got transferred, the Transfer O.P. was dismissed.

3. Thereafter, yet another application in I.A.No.13749 of 2008 was filed by the first respondent to recall P.W.1 and the same was allowed. It is seen that written arguments of both sides were also submitted during October 2007 itself. Without cross-examining P.W.1 after he was recalled, the first defendant / the petitioner herein filed the present application contending that the suit is barred by limitation and the relief claimed in the suit has not been properly valued and the 'B' Schedule has been under valued.

4. The first respondent by filing a detailed counter affidavit contested the application inter-alia contending as follows:-

The application has been filed at a belated stage when judgment is about to be pronounced and as such the application is not maintainable. Since in the suit, permanent injunction has been sought for and