21.4. He would submit that it was critical to highlight that Respondent Nos.13 and 14 were impleaded as parties to the present proceedings only subsequent to passing of the order dated 14.11.2016. Therefore, at the time when the order dated 14.11.2016 was passed, Respondent Nos.13 and 14 were not even parties to the present proceedings. Infact, Respondent Nos.13 and 14, inter alia, derive their interest in the suit property from Respondent No.9 who had filed Application on 05.01.2015 for framing the preliminary issue of limitation. However, this Application of Respondent No.9 was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 03.03.2015 in light of the prevalent law as laid down in Kamalakar Eknath Salunkhe (supra), that the issue of limitation cannot be decided as a preliminary issue as it was held to be a mixed question of facts and law. Therefore, even assuming that the order dated 14.11.2016 was held to be binding as regards other Respondents, the same cannot be the position as regards Respondent Nos.13 and 14 who are subsequently added parties. Therefore, Respondent Nos.13 and 14 are entitled to take up all defenses available to them including but not limited to the defense of limitation which indeed has been taken up by them in their written statement filed before the learned Trial Court. He would submit that the order dated 14.11.2016 is however held to be binding even as regards Respondent Nos.13 and 14 and this tantamounts to foreclosing
