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 appellants and urged that there is documentary evidence on record to show that the firm-defendant No.1 continued to exist and its business activities continued even after the death of Shri M. Balraj Reddy. He, therefore, urged that the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants that the firm stood dissolved automatically on the death of Shri M. Balaraj Reddy is misconceived. 13. He further contended that the issue of limitation was never raised before the trial Court and thus, the same could not have been allowed to be taken at the first appellate stage. On these grounds, 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.