We were defendant in a civil suit for declaration of title of immovable property. Trial court gave decision in our favor and one of the findings of trial court was that the suit filed by plaintiff therein was barred by limitation both on facts and law.
Thereafter plaintiff reached first appellate court (Court of District Judge) against the decree of trial court upon which appellate court allowed his appeal and remitted the case back to trial court for taking additional evidence. Surprisingly, first appellate court has not reversed the finding of limitation of trial court in its order.
The reason of delay mentioned by plaintiff in original suit is that he was insane for the questioned span of time. He did not produce any evidence in support of his contentions of being insane and in contrary we (defendant) produced documentary evidence which proves that he was facing some defamation suit in that period of time wherein he registered his presence as well in the court. Thus trial court agreed to our evidence and recorded the finding of limitation in its judgement.
Now my question is even if limitation is cosidered to be a question of both facts and law, How can the case be remitted back to trial court without reversing the finding of limitation? Can we say appellate court fell in error by remitting the case which is clearly barred by limitation both on facts and law?