that it is the duty of the Court to dismiss any suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation, although limitation has not been set up as a defence and thus, the learned Division Bench erred in allowing LPA No. 47 of 2002 and interfering with the judgment dated 19th October, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis that the plea of limitation was never raised during the pleadings and thus, the learned Single Judge ought not to have dealt with the issue of limitation. 11. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants urged that the impugned judgment whereby, the decree passed by the learned trial Court to dissolve the firm- defendant No. 1 and directing the partners to tender the accounts was upheld is ex facie illegal, and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5Submissions on behalf of Respondents: - 12. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1- plaintiff disputed the contentions of the learned counsel representing the