Pleading rejection in partition suits requires a clear legal bar on the plaint; disputed partition and res judicata need evidence.

A plaint in a partition suit can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) CPC only if the bar of law is apparent from the plaint itself. The court cannot at that stage examine defence material, resolve disputed facts, or decide mixed questions of law and fact. Questions such as whether there had been a complete partition by metes and bounds, whether any property remained for partition, and whether earlier decrees, sales, possession, or res judicata barred the suit required evidence. The plaint was therefore not liable to rejection on the material before the court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint in a partition suit 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 law, including on the basis of prior proceedings, alleged partition, and res judicata.

Analysis: The power under Order VII, Rule 11(d) is confined to cases where the bar of law is apparent from the averments in the plaint itself. At that stage, the court cannot add to or subtract from the plaint, cannot look into defence evidence, and cannot decide disputed questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact. Whether the earlier proceedings resulted in a complete partition by metes and bounds, whether any property remained available for partition, and whether the effect of earlier decrees, sales, or possession barred the suit were matters requiring adjudication on evidence. The plea of res judicata and the related objections could not be conclusively determined in an application under Order VII, Rule 11(d).

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the material then before the court.

---