The question of limitation involves mixed questions of law and fact and should be determined at trial, not preemptively.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short] praying to set aside the Dismissal Order passed in the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in I.A. No.5 of 2022 in O.S. No.1295 of 2020 on the file of 'the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai' [hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'], by the petitioner therein.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties will be hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. Facts necessary for the disposal of the case are that the plaintiff -

bank filed a Suit for recovery of money against the defendants in O.S. No.1295 of 2020 on the file of the Trial Court. According to the plaintiff - bank, the 2^nd defendant was employed as a Sub-Postmaster, Pammal, Post Office, Tambaram Division, Tambaram.

3.1. During the course of employment, by executing necessary documents, the 2^nd defendant availed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff - bank and the 3^rd defendant stood as a guarantor/surety for the loan. The 2^nd defendant had authorised the 1^st defendant to deduct the monthly instalment from his salary and to remit the same to the plaintiff.

3.2. The 2^nd defendant was superannuated on November 30, 2012.

The 2nd defendant encountered disciplinary proceedings resulting in issuance of charge memo and issuance of other proceedings and thereby his terminal benefits were withheld by the 1^st defendant. As per the documents executed by the 2^nd defendant to the plaintiff, if the 2^nd defendant has attained superannuation or retired from service voluntarily, the dues to the plaintiff - bank must be settled first and only the remaining amount has to be disbursed to the 2^nd defendant.

3.3. As on February 3, 2020, the 2^nd defendant is due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,31,486/-. After completion of the disciplinary proceedings on March 5, 2018, the 2^nd defendant attempted to obtain the terminal benefits without clearing the dues of the plaintiff - bank with a view to defeat and defraud the plaintiff - bank's lawful claim. The 3^rd defendant as a guarantor is also jointly and severally liable to pay the debt. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of money.

3.4. After receiving summons, the 2nd defendant entered appearance and filed written statement along with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking to reject the plaint stating that the Suit is barred by limitation.

3.5. The Trial Court after hearing both sides' concluded that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts which can be gone through only after completion of the trial and accordingly, dismissed the Interlocutory Application.

3.6. Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order, the Petitioner therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Mr.S.Arun, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner /

2^nd defendant argued that the relief sought for by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. He elaborated on the said argument by submitting that the Suit loan was obtained in the year 2010 and the Petitioner was superannuated on November 30, 2012. The Suit was filed in the year 2020 much beyond the period of limitation. He further submitted that the Trial Court without appreciating the plaint and plaint documents properly, erred in dismissing the Interlocutory Application. Therefore, he prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the Trial Court's Order and to allow the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.5 of 2022 and therby reject the plaint. He relied upon the following Judgments in support of his contentions: (i) Raghwendra Sharan Singh -vs- Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs reported in CDJ 2019 SC 314; (ii) Dahiben -vs- Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through LRs reported in CDJ 2020 SC 606; (iii) C.S.Ramaswamy -vs- V.K.Senthil reported in CDJ 2022 SC 1069; (iv) Ramisetty Venkatan