Limitation apparent from plaint averments justifies rejection at threshold despite creative pleading

A plaint may be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC when its own averments show that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The Court found that the plaint admitted execution of a registered gift deed in 1981 and disclosed no challenge for about 22 years, so the limitation bar was apparent on a meaningful reading of the pleadings. Such a challenge could not be saved by clever drafting, and the issue did not have to await evidence. The plaint was therefore liable to rejection at the threshold, and the rejection was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The plaint itself admitted execution of a registered gift deed in 1981 and disclosed that the executants did not challenge it for about 22 years. On a meaningful reading of the plaint, the challenge to the gift deed was found to be an attempt to avoid the limitation bar by clever drafting. The Court held that, where the bar of limitation is apparent from the plaint averments, the question need not await evidence and the plaint can be rejected at the threshold.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant appellant; the plaint was held liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d).

Final Conclusion: The suit was treated as barred by limitation on the plaint averments, and the rejection of the plaint was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint that, on a meaningful reading of its own averments, discloses that the suit is barred by limitation cannot be saved by clever drafting and may be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) without awaiting evidence.

---