point has to be tried along with other issues, [Arjan Singh v. Union, A 1987 Del 165] but not where there is no clear or specific admission in the plaint suggesting that the suit barred [Ratan v. Secy of State, 18 CWN 1340; Sreedam v. Tincori, A 1953 C 222; British Airways v. Arts Works Export Ltd, A 1986 Calcutta 120, 123. Also see Manohar Lal Chatrath v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 82 (1999) DLT 33 (DB)]. A plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation especially when it is a mixed question of fact and law [Khaja Quthubuliah v. Govt. Of A.P., AIR 1995 AP 43, 46; Mariyamma (Smt.) v. N.V. Srinivasa Murthy, AIR 2003 NOC 375 (Kant)]. Keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Courts this court is of the view that question of limitation in the present case is mixed question facts and laws, no where in the plaint fact of acknowledgement mentioned on date 21.06.2005 about which defendants are arguing that it is the date of knowledge and plaintif filed this case at very belated time in the year 2018 and violating the law of limitation, but on perusal of the plaint it can be said that
