Pleadings barred by limitation and Order 2 Rule 2 justified rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d).

A plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) where, on its own averments, the suit was barred on the face of the record. The pleadings showed that the claimed cause of action arose when repayment was allegedly made and reconveyance was demanded, but the suit was instituted years later, making it time-barred. The Court also noted that mutation proceedings did not create a fresh cause of action and that the consequential reliefs should have been sought in the earlier pending suit. The plaint was therefore barred by limitation and by Order 2 Rule 2.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the suit was barred by law, including limitation and the bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The plaint, read as a whole, disclosed that the foundation of the suit was a sale deed of 1953 alleged to be only a loan transaction with an oral promise of reconveyance on repayment. On the plaintiffs' own averments, the cause of action for such relief arose on 25.3.1987 when the loan was said to have been repaid and reconveyance demanded, yet the suit was filed only in 1996. The pleadings concerning mutation proceedings did not create any fresh cause of action, and the reliefs now sought should have been claimed in the earlier pending suit. The omission to seek the consequential reliefs and the manner of pleading showed that the suit was barred by law on its face.

Conclusion: The plaint was rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) and the suit was barred by limitation as well as by Order 2 Rule 2.

---