1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. This Civil Revision Application is in the face of concurrent findings. Though it is under Section 115 of CPC, it raises a question of law. To be precise, a question of law and fact:

limitation.

3. To put the issue in its proper perspective, I need to touch upon the facts in the earlier rounds of litigation. For the preceding litigation provides the background for the Court to reckon whether the respondent’s suit is barred by the limitation.

4. SGM Properties and Investments Pvt., Ltd., (“the Company”) is the landlord; it purchased the property in March 1982. As its title is not in dispute, we leave it at that. By the time the Company purchased the property, it was occupied by, as the Company asserts, three persons: the cousins. The company treated them as trespassers “in an illegal occupation.” So it wanted their eviction. For that purpose, it filed SC Suit No.685 of 1990. In that suit, on 30th January 1990, the Company sought an interim relief of injunction. Even this relief does not affect our discussion.

5. The fact remains that the suit was filed in January 1990. On 31st January 1990, B