1. The applicant before this Court has filed present revision petition against order dated 9.2.2017 passed in Civil Suit No. 52-A/2017 by which the trial Court has refused to decide the preliminary issue in respect of limitation.

2. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that It is an undisputed fact in the present case that the mother of the respondents executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 23.1.2010 with respect to the suit property. The petitioner is admittedly in possession of the suit property. The present suit was filed on 3.2.2016 i.e. nearly after lapse of 6 years.

3. In respect of the suit in question, the respondents have challenged the aforesaid sale deed. It is pertinent to note here that in the aforesaid sale deed, which was executed by Ratanbai, the respondent No. 1 and wife of respondent No. 2 are attesting witnesses. Thus since inception, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not only fully aware of the execution of the said sale deed but were the consenting parties also.

4. He further submits that the respondents have filed the present suit stating therein that by a sale deed dated 3.5.1956, the suit property was purchased by their mother, Ratanbai and their grandmother, Jhumabai. Thereafter, Jhumabai had executed a Will in favour of Ratanbai regarding her share in the suit property and Jhumabai had expired. Thus, Ratanbai became the sole owner of the suit property. It is further claimed that Ratanbai had executed a Will with respect to the suit property in favour of the respondents and another brother Padam Kumar. It is further stated that the petitioner by playing fraud got executed a registered sale deed in her favour from Ratanbai with respect to the suit property. It is further claimed that after death of Ratanbai and according to her Will, the respondents are the owners of the suit property. The respondents have paid fixed court-fees on the plaint instead of ad valorem court-fees.

5. Learned senior counsel Shri Jain submits that the respondents have also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction which was dismissed and it was held that the suit is prima facie barred by time. An appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed as prima facie the suit was barred by time.

6. The applicant filed written statement challenging the averments made in the plaint. The learned trial Court has framed six issues in the matter. Out of the 6 issues, issue No. 4 and 5 were ordered to be considered as preliminary issues. The issue No. 4 is with respect to valuation and court-fees, while the issue No. 5 is with respect to the fact whether the suit is barred by time or not?

7. It is pertinent to mention here that nowhere it is claimed by the respondents that respondent No. 1 and wife of respondent No. 2 are not the attesting witnesses to the sale deed in question. The respondents have stated that on 26.1.2016 the petitioner started demolishing the ground floor of the suit property, therefore, the cause of action has arisen on that day and the suit is within time.

8. The learned trial Court by order dated 9.2.2017 has held that issue No. 5 i.e. issue with regard to limitation and the suit being barred by limitation, will be considered after recording the evidence. With regard to issue No. 4 relating to valuation and Court fees, the learned trial Court has held that the respondents are liable to pay ad valorem court-fees according to the valuation of the suit property (sale deed). The learned trial Court has granted them time to pay ad valorem court-fees.

9. In the present case, it is not in dispute nor can be disputed that the respondents since inception were fully aware being the witness to the sale deed that their mother executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The said sale deed was never disputed either by the mother during her life time and nor thereafter, till filing of the suit. It cannot also be disputed that the petitioner is in possession of the