Plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) requires a clear bar from the plaint itself, not disputed factual inquiry.

A plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) only when, on a meaningful reading of the entire pleading, the bar of law is apparent from the plaint itself. Disputed questions of fact and limitation that depend on evidence cannot be decided at that stage, and a claim with multiple reliefs on distinct factual foundations cannot be treated as barred by isolating one alleged source of relief. On the plaint as pleaded, the suit did not clearly appear to be barred by law, so rejection of the plaint was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation on the basis of the averments in the plaint.

Analysis: For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), only the averments in the plaint are relevant and the plaint must be read as a whole. A plaint can be rejected only when, on a meaningful reading without addition or subtraction, it clearly appears to be barred by law. Disputed questions cannot be resolved at that stage, and a claim involving multiple reliefs with independent factual foundations cannot be treated as barred merely by isolating one alleged source of relief. The question of limitation in the present case depended on evidence and could not be conclusively determined from the plaint alone.

Conclusion: The suit did not appear from the plaint itself to be barred by law, and rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) was unwarranted; the appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) only when the bar of law is apparent from the plaint itself on a reading of the entire pleading, without entering into disputed questions of fact or evidence.

---