Order VII Rule 11(d) cannot defeat a plaint on limitation where the bar depends on disputed facts and evidence.

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on limitation grounds unless the bar is unmistakably apparent from the plaint itself. Where the plea turns on disputed facts, including title, possession, knowledge of the alleged defect, or whether the relief for possession is consequential to declaration, the issue cannot be decided without evidence. The applicability of Article 58 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act also depends on the nature of the reliefs and factual foundation. The plaint was therefore not barred ex facie by limitation, the rejection was unsustainable, and the suit was restored for trial on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of limitation when the plea turns on disputed facts relating to title, possession and knowledge of the alleged defect in description of the property.

Analysis: For rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court must look only at the plaint averments and determine whether, on their face, the suit is barred by law. A limitation plea that depends upon evidence, including when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the alleged mistake, whether the plaintiff remained in possession, and whether the claim for possession is consequential to declaration of title, cannot be decided at that stage. The question whether Article 58 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies also depends upon the nature of the reliefs and the factual foundation of the suit, and therefore cannot justify rejection of the plaint without trial where the plaint does not ex facie disclose a bar.

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) as barred by limitation; the issue had to be tried on evidence.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's order rejecting the plaint was unsustainable and was set aside, restoring the suit for trial on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) only when the plaint itself, read as a whole, unmistakably shows a bar of law; where limitation depends on disputed facts or requires evidence, rejection at the threshold is impermissible.

---