Order 7 Rule 11(d) requires a clear legal bar on the plaint's face; disputed jurisdictional facts cannot justify rejection.

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC unless the plaint itself, on its face and without disputed questions, shows that the suit is barred by law. The Madras HC held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action at Chennai, including allegations of misrepresentation, fraud, suppression of material facts, wrongful removal from directorship, and disputed share transfer. Those jurisdictional objections depended on factual disputes, including where the cause of action arose and the plaintiff's shareholding status, and could not be decided at the rejection stage. The availability of remedies under the Companies Act, 1956 did not by itself bar civil court jurisdiction for the reliefs claimed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the civil court lacked jurisdiction and the dispute fell exclusively within the company law remedy.

Analysis: The plaint was read as a whole and disclosed a cause of action at Chennai, including allegations of misrepresentation, fraud, suppression of material facts, alleged wrongful removal from directorship, and disputed transfer of shares. The jurisdictional objection depended on disputed factual questions, including the place where the cause of action arose and the plaintiff's shareholding status. Such questions could not be decided at the stage of rejection of plaint. The existence of remedies under the Companies Act, 1956 did not by itself establish an express or implied bar of civil court jurisdiction for the civil reliefs claimed in the suit. Order 7, Rule 11(d) applies only when the plaint itself, without dispute, shows a bar by law.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected and the civil court's jurisdiction was upheld.

---