Limitation as a mixed question of law and fact prevents threshold rejection of a plaint unless the bar is clear on the face of it.

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on limitation alone unless the bar is apparent from the plaint itself. Limitation is ordinarily a mixed question of law and fact, so the court must consider the pleadings, frame a limitation issue where necessary, and take evidence before deciding whether the suit is time-barred. Where such factual enquiry is required, rejection of the plaint at the threshold is not justified. On the facts stated, the plaint could not be rejected merely on the plea of limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation.

Analysis: The question whether a suit is barred by limitation ordinarily depends on pleadings and evidence and cannot be decided merely from a bare reading of the plaint unless the bar is apparent on the face of the plaint. Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is not justified where proper pleadings, an issue on limitation, and evidence are necessary to determine the plea.

Conclusion: A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code merely on the plea of limitation in the facts of this case.

---