Pleading-based limitation and jurisdiction objections cannot defeat a plaint when fraud, notice, and statutory exemption remain triable issues.

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) on limitation where the pleaded case raises triable questions on the plaintiff's knowledge, notice, or later discovery of the relevant transactions, especially when fraud and collusion are alleged. The civil court also could not reject the suit for want of jurisdiction merely by invoking the bar under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, because Section 85A contemplates a distinct procedure where tenancy-related issues arise, and the possible application of statutory exemption required fuller examination. The rejection of the plaint was therefore unsustainable, and the suit was restored for decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint could be rejected at the threshold on the ground of limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the civil suit was liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction in view of Sections 85 and 85A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint could be rejected at the threshold on the ground of limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Limitation, on the pleadings, depended on when the plaintiffs acquired knowledge of the tenancy proceedings and related transactions. The plaint specifically asserted absence of notice, later discovery from records, and collusion and fraud in the proceedings. At the stage of Order VII Rule 11, such assertions could not be tested as if on evidence. The question whether the plaintiffs had notice, constructive notice, or knowledge was a triable issue and could not be conclusively decided to reject the plaint.

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected on the ground of limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the civil suit was liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction in view of Sections 85 and 85A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Analysis: Section 85 bars civil court jurisdiction in respect of matters required to be decided under the Act, but Section 85A provides a distinct procedure where a civil suit involves issues within the Act's competence. The pleadings also raised allegations of fraud and collusion, matters not capable of being finally foreclosed by a bare jurisdictional objection at the threshold. Further, the possible application of the exemption under Section 88-B(1)(d) was a legal issue going to the root of the matter and required consideration. On these pleadings, the civil court could not straightaway reject the suit without examining the statutory scheme more fully.

Conclusion: The civil court was not justified in rejecting the plaint for want of jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the plaint was unsustainable, and the suit had to be restored for decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) on limitation or jurisdiction where the pleaded facts make knowledge, notice, fraud, collusion, or statutory exemption a triable issue, and the statutory bar on civil jurisdiction is not absolute in the face of the procedure contemplated by Section 85A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

---