Plaint rejection on limitation requires plaint averments alone; disputed facts on knowledge or fraud must go to trial.

An application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) must be decided only on the plaint as a whole, without relying on the defendant's defence or other material outside the plaint. Where the plea of limitation depends on disputed facts such as knowledge of the transaction, alleged fraud, impersonation, or the date of discovery, the issue cannot be conclusively determined at the threshold. In such circumstances, the plaint cannot be rejected without trial, and limitation remains a triable issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of limitation by relying on material beyond the plaint averments.

Analysis: In considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), the only relevant material is the plaint and it must be read as a whole. The defence raised by the defendants or factual assertions in opposition cannot be used to decide whether the suit is barred by limitation at the threshold. On the plaint averments, the plaintiffs asserted lack of knowledge of the sale deed until 2013, alleged fraud and impersonation, and pleaded prompt action after discovery. In that situation, the question of limitation depended on the factual foundation and the applicable article of limitation, which could not be conclusively decided without trial.

Conclusion: The suit was not liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d); the limitation objection was a triable issue.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) must be decided only on the plaint averments, and where the plea of limitation turns on disputed facts such as knowledge, fraud, or discovery, the plaint cannot be rejected without trial.

---