he sought dismissal of the appeal. 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the material placed on record. Discussion and Conclusion: - 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the reasoning given by the learned Division Bench while dismissing LPA No. 47 of 2002, that the learned Single Judge ought not to 6have considered the question of limitation as the defendants did not choose to raise the plea of limitation in the trial Court is ex- facie erroneous. Law in this regard has been settled by this Court through a catena of decisions. We may refer to the judgment in the case of V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. v. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and Another3, wherein this Court held as follows: “20. The mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act is that it is the duty of the court to dismiss any suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation irrespective of the fact that