5. A perusal of the order go to show that the Court below had categorized and raised as many as eight objections in the Interlocutory Application and formulated as ground Nos.1 to 8, elaborately considering each of the ground and rejected. Inasmuch as the order of the Court below is in detail, I do not wish to repeat the same here. Further, it is needless to say that the objection with respect to the documents as not binding on the 1st defendant, as to whether the document is adequately stamped or not and whether it requires registration, the area which was agreed to be sold and what area which has already been sold registered, are all matters to be considered after respective parties adduced their evidence. However, one aspect of the matter which probably may require to be considered as to whether prima facie the suit is barred by limitation. It is the matter of record that pursuant to the agreement dated 20.09.2006, on two occasions the defendants had executed documents in favour of plaintiff’s mother and thereafter a legal notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to execute further document. In other words, the effect of execution of the two documents and the effect of the legal notice and the response, if any, of the revision petitioner–1st defendant to the legal notice of the respondent-plaintiff herein, the matters which are required to be considered to give a conclusion, as to whether the suit filed is within the limitation or not. In matters of this nature, and in view of
