Pleadings must be read as a whole before rejecting a plaint on limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d).

Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, a plaint can be rejected only if the suit is barred by law on the face of the plaint itself. The SC held that limitation must be examined on a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, not by isolating selected passages, and that averments showing date of knowledge or other relevant facts cannot be ignored. Where the pleaded facts make limitation a disputable issue dependent on evidence, threshold rejection is not justified. The rejection order was therefore unsustainable, the suit was restored, and limitation was left open for determination in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation, and whether the plaint had to be read as a whole for deciding that question.

Analysis: The provision governing rejection of plaint permits such rejection only when the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by law. The relevant enquiry is confined to the plaint averments, which must be read as a whole and not by isolating selected sentences or passages. If the plaint contains pleadings showing the date of knowledge and other facts bearing on limitation, the issue cannot be decided mechanically by ignoring the contextual averments. The power under Order VII Rule 11(d) is to be exercised on a meaningful reading of the plaint, and if the pleaded facts disclose that the question of limitation depends upon facts stated in the plaint, rejection at the threshold is not justified. The court also noted that the plaint had been rejected after the suit had proceeded through written statement, issues and evidence, which reinforced the error in treating limitation as apparent on the face of the plaint.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) on limitation, and the order rejecting it was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The suit was directed to be restored and decided on merits, with the question of limitation left open for adjudication in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court must examine the plaint as a whole and may do so only on the basis of its own averments; where those averments disclose a disputable question of limitation, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold.

---