Limitation under Article 58 begins with the first clear threat to the asserted right; plaint may be rejected at the threshold.

A plaint may be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC where the plaint and accompanying documents themselves show that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The operative test is when the right to sue first accrues, which in this context is when a clear and unequivocal threat to the asserted right first arises. By contrast, objections based on Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act did not justify threshold rejection because the pleaded issues of possession and fiduciary relationship required evidence. On the pleaded facts, the earlier assertion of absolute ownership and exclusive possession triggered limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The challenge based on Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was held not to justify rejection of the plaint at the threshold, as the pleadings disclosed issues of possession and fiduciary relationship that required evidence. On limitation, the material pleaded in the plaint and the documents referred to therein showed that the plaintiff's right was clearly and unequivocally threatened when the sister filed the earlier suit in 1994 asserting absolute ownership and exclusive possession and obtaining interim protection. For Article 58, the period begins when the right to sue first accrues, and a later suit cannot avoid limitation by relying on a subsequent or repeated threat when an earlier clear infringement had already arisen.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the order refusing rejection of plaint was set aside, and the plaint was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation commences when a clear and unequivocal threat to the asserted right first arises, and if that point is apparent from the plaint and accompanying documents, the plaint may be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---