Limitation-based rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) follows where plaint facts show the claim is time-barred.

A plaint is liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC where the bar of limitation is evident from the plaint and its supporting documents alone. In a declaration suit, limitation starts when the right to sue first accrues, and in a cancellation claim it runs from when the facts justifying cancellation first become known. On the plaintiff's own pleadings, knowledge of the adverse acts existed from 1993 to 1996, so the cause of action arose long before the 2011 filing. The suit was therefore barred by limitation, and the plaint was rejected.

---

---

Issues: 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, on the plaint averments and accompanying documents, was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The plaint and the documents filed with it showed that the plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged adverse acts as early as 1993 to 1996, including cancellation of the power of attorney, transfer of the flat by the transferee, and the dispute notified by the development authority. For the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11, only the plaint and its supporting documents could be examined, and the defendant's version could not be used to displace the pleadings. In a suit for declaration, limitation begins when the right to sue first accrues, and in a suit seeking cancellation of an instrument, limitation runs from the date when the facts entitling cancellation first become known. On the plaintiff's own pleadings, the cause of action had arisen long before the suit was filed in 2011.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the plaint was liable to be rejected; the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) succeeded.

---