R.P. Mishra, J. - (1.) One of the question raised by the petitioner before the trial Court was that the suit filed by the contesting respondent was barred by the principles of res judicata as well as the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, therefore, this question should be decided first as preliminary issue but the trial Court by its order, dated 3-5-1997 rejected this prayer, against which petitioner preferred revision which has also been rejected by the Additional Commissioner by order, dated 18-6-1998. Against the order of Additional Commissioner, petitioner again preferred revision, that too has been rejected by the Board of Revenue by impugned order dated 27-7-1998.
(2.) Learned Member Board of Revenue has taken the view that the orders impugned before him were interlocutory orders and the questions sought to be decided as preliminary issue cannot be decided first as preliminary issue.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others v. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others, AIR 1966 SC 153 , wherein their lordships of Apex Court have ruled that a plea of limitation or a plea of res judicata is a plea of law which concerns the jurisdiction of the Court.;