Order VII Rule 11 rejection fails when a benami bar depends on disputed facts and an evidentiary exception.

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because a statutory bar is pleaded. Where the applicability of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, or the exception in Section 4(3)(b), turns on disputed facts and requires evidence, the bar is not clear on the face of the plaint. The pleadings here alleged purchase of property with the appellant's funds in the father's name and relied on an acknowledgment of ownership, so fuller adjudication was necessary. The plaint therefore could not be rejected at the threshold and the suit had to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and whether the exception under Section 4(3) required evidence before deciding the bar.

Analysis: The pleadings asserted that the property was purchased with the appellant's funds but was taken in the father's name, and also relied on a document acknowledging the appellant's ownership. Whether the transaction fell within the prohibition in Section 4 or within the exception in Section 4(3)(b) depended on the factual matrix and could not be decided merely on the plaint at the stage of Order VII Rule 11. An application under Order VII Rule 11 can succeed only when the plaint itself, on a plain reading and without dispute, shows a clear bar of law. The controversy required evidence and fuller adjudication.

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11, and the suit was not shown to be barred on the face of the plaint.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 merely because a statutory bar is alleged; where applicability of the bar depends on disputed facts or on an exception that requires evidence, the matter must proceed to trial.

---