Pleading rejection at threshold fails where limitation and maintainability turn on disputed facts and evidence, not summary determination.

A plaint should not be rejected at the threshold where limitation or maintainability depends on disputed facts requiring evidence and factual appreciation. The court held that an objection based on limitation could not be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when the alleged breach, implementation and refusal of a family arrangement were in dispute, and the suit was not barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act merely because the defendant asserted an equally efficacious remedy or denied a concluded contract. A new legal ground raised for the first time in appeal against an interlocutory order was also declined, as it would ordinarily not be entertained if it prejudices the opposite party. The refusal to reject the plaint was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a new legal ground could be raised for the first time in appeal against an interlocutory order. (ii) Whether the suit was liable to be rejected as barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 on the footing that specific performance was an equally efficacious remedy and the arrangement was not a concluded contract. (iii) Whether the suit could be rejected at the preliminary stage on the ground of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether a new legal ground could be raised for the first time in appeal against an interlocutory order.

Analysis: A pure question of law going to the root of the matter may in a proper case be entertained at a later stage if it arises from the admitted/common case and does not cause unfair prejudice. However, where a party seeks to challenge an interlocutory order on a fresh ground not urged before the court of first instance, the appellate court should normally decline to entertain it, especially when such a course would disadvantage the opposite party and disrupt the orderly conduct of the suit.

Conclusion: The new ground was not accepted as a basis to interfere.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was liable to be rejected as barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 on the footing that specific performance was an equally efficacious remedy and the arrangement was not a concluded contract.

Analysis: The bar against injunction where an equally efficacious remedy exists does not require a suit to fail at the threshold when the pleadings and admitted documents disclose a plausible basis for the relief claimed. The parties had advanced competing and inconsistent stands on whether the family arrangement was enforceable, and family settlements are to be viewed with special equity and a pragmatic approach. The plaint could not be treated as demonstrably untenable merely because the defendant asserted that no concluded contract existed or that specific performance might be available.

Conclusion: The suit was not rejected under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Issue (iii): Whether the suit could be rejected at the preliminary stage on the ground of limitation.

Analysis: The question of limitation depended upon disputed factual events, including the course of alleged implementation of the family arrangement and the point at which any breach or refusal became clear. Such an objection required evidence and factual appraisal, and was therefore not fit for determination under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at the threshold.

Conclusion: The limitation objection could not be decided at the preliminary stage.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court found no reason to interfere with the order refusing rejection of the plaint, and the dismissal of the application was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint should not be rejected at the threshold on disputed grounds such as limitation or maintainability when the issues require evidence or factual appreciation, and an appellate court will ordinarily not allow a new objection to upset an interlocutory order if it was not raised before the court below.

---