In Gannmani Anasuya v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary – 2007(10) SCC 296 , the Supreme Court has held as under:- “27. In terms of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, it is for the court to determine the question as to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not irrespective of the fact that as to whether such a plea has been raised by the parties. Such a jurisdictional fact need not, thus, be pleaded. In any event, the said evidence was admissible for the purpose of contradicting a witness, which being a relevant fact should have been considered in its proper perspective. If the contents of Ext. B-8 were accepted, it was not for the High Court to consider the consequences flowing therefrom, and, thus, but the fact whether the figure(s) contained therein could be verified from the books of account might not be very relevant. Whether, it would be in consonance with the pleadings of the appellants was again of not much significance if it can be used for demolishing the case of the plaintiffs and Defendant 1. If the figures contained in Ext. B-8 were accepted, it was for Defendant 1 to explain the same and not for the appellants. The High Court, in our opinion, thus, committed a manifest error in not taking into consideration the contents of Ext. B-8 in its proper perspective.”
