- (1.) Petitioner has preferred this revision petition being aggrieved with the order dated, 2-6-83 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in the original suit. Suit was instituted for the recovery of the advances made by the plaintiff against the defendant. Issues were framed on 17-11-79. Issue No. 3 reads as under :- xx xx xx xx xx This issue was decided against the plaintiff vide order dated 2-6-83. Trial Court passed the order which reads as under :- "On issue No. 3 it is decided that the suit is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed and the plaintiff's calm is liable to be dismissed on that count."
(2.) This Court, on 6-4-89 suo motu asked the parties whether the trial Court's impugned decision dismissing the suit as time barred is appealable; and, if so, whether the revision petition can be entertained? Time was allowed to the parties to study on this point.
(3.) Mr. Kasliwal appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the suit has not been dismissed but the Court has held that it is liable to be dismissed. As such, according to Mr. Kasliwal, this is not a decree but is an interlocutory order and the revision is maintainable. He further submits that the Court has not directed that the suit be dismissed and, for this reason formal decree has not been drawn.;