Plaint rejection requires clear legal bar; benami and limitation disputes needing evidence must go to trial.
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) where the alleged bar under the Benami law depends on rival factual assertions and the pleaded exception for property purchased in a close relative's name requires evidence. The HC held that such a dispute cannot be conclusively determined at the rejection stage, so the suit was not rejected on the benami ground. It also held that limitation could not be finally decided at that stage because the plaint contained an explanation and the issue required trial. The suit was therefore directed to proceed, with status quo maintained.
Issues: (i) Whether the suit was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as barred by Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the plea of limitation could be decided at the stage of rejection of plaint.
Issue (i): Whether the suit was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as barred by Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Analysis: The plaint asserted that the property was purchased in the name of a close relative, and reliance was placed on the exception under Section 2(9)(A)(b)(iv) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Whether the transaction fell within the benami prohibition or within the pleaded exception depended on the rival factual contentions and required evidence. Such a dispute could not be conclusively determined at the stage of an application for rejection of plaint.
Conclusion: The suit was not liable to be rejected on the ground of benami bar at that stage.
Issue (ii): Whether the plea of limitation could be decided at the stage of rejection of plaint.
Analysis: The plaint contained an explanation on limitation, and the question whether the suit was time-barred required a full trial and appraisal of evidence. The plea could not be decided summarily in proceedings under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Conclusion: The plea of limitation could not be accepted for rejection of the plaint at that stage.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were upheld, the revision petitions were disposed of, and the suit was directed to proceed to trial with status quo maintained in the meantime.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) where the pleaded facts raise a factual dispute on statutory bar or limitation that can be resolved only after evidence.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
