Order VII Rule 11 threshold scrutiny: plaint survives where cause of action and limitation depend on disputed facts requiring trial.

For rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments and read the plaint as a whole. A defence raised by the defendant, or documents relied on by it, cannot be used to defeat the plaint at the threshold. Where the plaint discloses foundational facts showing a cause of action, it cannot be rejected merely because the original contract is not on record. Rejection on limitation is permissible only when the bar is apparent from the plaint itself; if limitation depends on disputed facts, including the effect of correspondence, acknowledgment, or promise to pay, the issue must be tried. The plaint was restored and the suit allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action on a meaningful reading and could be rejected for non-disclosure of material facts under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the suit was liable to be rejected as barred by limitation, including on the basis of alleged acknowledgment and promise to pay.

Issue (i): whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action on a meaningful reading and could be rejected for non-disclosure of material facts under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Analysis: For deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, the plaint has to be read as a whole and the averments in the plaint alone are relevant. The defence set up by the defendant or the supporting documents relied upon by it cannot be used to defeat the plaint at the threshold. The plaint in the present case contained the foundational facts relating to the allotment, default, resumption of possession, subsequent demand letters and the basis for the amount claimed. The absence of the original contract on the record at that stage did not, by itself, justify rejection of the plaint.

Conclusion: The plaint disclosed a cause of action and could not be rejected on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether the suit was liable to be rejected as barred by limitation, including on the basis of alleged acknowledgment and promise to pay

Analysis: Rejection on limitation is permissible only where the bar is apparent from the plaint itself. Here, limitation depended upon disputed questions of fact, including the legal effect of the defendant's correspondence and whether there was a valid acknowledgment within time. The letter relied upon by the trial court was held to be only a conditional offer and not an unconditional promise to pay. The question whether there was acknowledgment of liability sufficient to extend limitation required evidence and could not be conclusively determined at the stage of Order VII Rule 11.

Conclusion: The suit was not liable to be rejected as time-barred at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the plaint was set aside, the plaint was restored, and the suit was directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments, and a plaint cannot be rejected where cause of action or limitation turns on disputed questions of fact requiring trial.

---