Limitation and plaint rejection: where the plaint itself shows a time-barred claim, courts may reject it before issuing summons.

A plaint can be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC where, on a meaningful reading, it is barred by limitation and discloses no pleaded factual to save time. Section 3 of the Limitation Act requires the court to dismiss a suit instituted beyond limitation even without a defence being raised. Where the plaint itself shows that the challenge is directed against an old transaction and contains no averment on date of knowledge or any basis for a later accrual of cause of action, summons need not be issued before considering limitation. The appeal failed and the dismissal of the suit with costs was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit was liable to be rejected at the threshold as barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether summons had to be issued merely because the plaint had been presented.

Analysis: A plaint must disclose a cause of action and be instituted within limitation. Under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court must dismiss a suit instituted beyond limitation even if no defence is raised. Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from the plaint itself to be barred by law. The requirement to issue summons arises only when the suit is duly instituted. On a meaningful reading of the plaint, the challenge was directed against a settlement deed executed and signed by the appellant in 1980, yet the plaint contained no factual pleading explaining the date of knowledge or any basis to bring the challenge within the limitation period. The claim that limitation should run from a later alleged cause of action was unsupported by the plaint averments.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and was rightly dismissed at the threshold; the appellant's contention that summons had to issue before considering limitation was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order dismissing the suit with costs was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the plaint itself shows that the suit is time-barred and discloses no pleaded factual basis to save limitation, the Court may reject the plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, without issuing summons.

---