by the learned Single Judge in C.C.C. Appeal No. 35 of 1999, observing that the plea of limitation was never raised during the pleadings in the trial Court and learned Single Judge ought not to have dealt with that issue at all. Being aggrieved, appellants have preferred the present appeal by special leave. Submissions of behalf of the appellants:- 8. Learned counsel representing the appellants urged that the suit was filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff for dissolution of the defendant No. 1-firm and for the rendition of accounts in the year 1996. He referred to the partnership deed dated 25th April, 1978, whereby the firm-defendant No.1 was constituted and urged that the partnership was a partnership at will. He drew the attention of the Court to Section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘the Act’) which reads as below: - “42. Dissolution on the happening of certain contingencies. — Subject to contract between the partners a firm is dissolved— (a) if