Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff appellant has instituted a suit for declaration about the date of death of Sudarshan Prasad. The plaintiff pleaded his pedigree in para 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff has stated that his predecessor Sudarshan Prasad died on 28.11.1992 at 11:00 p.m. However, the office of District Registrar, Bilihs and Deaths, Rewa issued a death certificate wherein Sudarshan Prasad is shown to have died on 29.11.1992. The plaintiff on coming to know of the aforesaid end or issued a notice dated 17.9.1996 under section 80, Criminal Procedure Code, with a request that the death cel1iticate issued with 29.11.1992 as date of death of Sudarshan Prasad may be withdrawn. The notice was not acceded to and consequently, the cause of action is stated to have arisen on 16.11.1996 i.e. on the expiry of the statutory period of notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code. The aforesaid incorrect death cel1ificate is stated to have been issued on 8.8.1993 by the office of respondent No.3. The plaintiff also prayed for relief that the death certificate with 29.11.1992 as date of death of Sudarshan Prasad may be declared ineffective.

The defendant-appellant raised an objection about the date of death in his written statement and stated that the correct date of death of Sudarshan Prasad was 29.11.1992. The defendant-appellant further raised an objection in the written statement that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The defendant also submitted an application under section 151, Civil Procedure Code with a prayer that the issue pertaining to limitation may be decided as a preliminary issue and the suit may be dismissed as barred by limitation. The plaintiff submitted his reply stating thereby that the question of limitation being a mixed question of facts and law, is required to be decided only after recording the evidence.

The learned trial Judge held that no oral evidence was required and the issue pel1aining to limitation will be decided on the basis of documents on record. The learned trial Judge, ultimately. vide order dated 16.11.1998. dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as barred by limitation.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the defendant-respondent No.1 preferred Civil Appeal No. 39-A/98 against the aforesaid order of dismissal of Civil Suit No. 6-A/97. The learned First Additional District Judge. Rewa, allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 11.2.2002. It has been held by the lower appellate Court that the issue in the present case pertaining to limitation could not have been decided without recording the evidence.In view of this finding, the dismissal of the suit by the learned trial Judge on the ground of limitation was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the learned trial Judge to decide all the issues on merits after recording the evidence of the parties.

The defendant-appellant has preferred this present appeal against the aforesaid order. The learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submits that the death certificate was issued on 7.5.1993 whereas the suit was instituted on 13.12.1996. He contended that the suit having been instituted after expiry of 3 years, is barred by limitation and the same was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Judge. He further contended that no oral evidence was required to be recorded and thus, remand by the lower appellate Court is totally unwarranted and hence illegal.

The learned senior counsel Shri R.P. Agrawal supported the impugned order.

After considering the submission made by the respective counsels, I am of the opinion that the appeal has no merits and is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:

(i) It may be seen that the suit is for declaration and is governed by Article 113 of the Indian Limitation Act. The period prescribed for a suit under this Article is 3 years commencing from the date when cause of action accrues in favour of the plaintiff. The accrual of cause of action is depen