Limitation and plaint rejection: a plaint survives Order VII Rule 11(d) unless bar of limitation is clear on a holistic reading.

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC unless the bar of limitation is evident from a holistic reading of the plaint itself. The Court held that isolated averments cannot be picked out to test limitation; the pleading must be read as a whole, and continuing correspondence or repeated representations may show later accrual of the right to sue. It further held that Article 113 of the Limitation Act concerns when the right to sue accrues, and where that issue depends on disputed or successive facts, limitation becomes a mixed question of fact and law not fit for threshold rejection. The appeal was allowed and the plaint restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The Court held that an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) must be decided on a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, and not by isolating selected averments. The pleaded facts showed continuing correspondence, repeated representations, and communications from the bank which, on the plaint's own showing, could amount to later accruals of the right to sue. The Court distinguished Article 113 from provisions that use the expression "when the right to sue first accrues", and held that limitation under Article 113 depends on when the right to sue accrues, which may occur at different points of time. It further held that whether the suit was time-barred on these pleadings involved a mixed question of fact and law and could not be decided at the threshold on an application for rejection of plaint.

Conclusion: The rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) was unsustainable and the plaint was not barred on its face by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the plaint was restored to the trial court for decision on merits, with all contentions kept open.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) only when the bar of limitation is evident from the plaint itself on a holistic reading; where the accrual of the right to sue depends on disputed or successive factual events, the issue is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided at the threshold.

---