Pleading challenge under Order 7 Rule 11 failed where benami issues needed factual inquiry and no clear statutory bar emerged.

A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 merely by invoking Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act or Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 where the relief against transport authorities has already been abandoned and only a dispute between private parties remains. The benami plea required examination of pleadings and surrounding facts, including the source of purchase, relationship between the parties and the nature of the transactions, so it was a mixed question of fact and law and not a pure legal bar that could be decided at the threshold. On that basis, the plaint was not liable to rejection on either ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the suit was barred by Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Analysis: The claim under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not sustain because the relief against the transport authorities had already been given up and only the dispute between the private parties survived. The plea based on Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 required examination of the pleadings and the surrounding facts, including the alleged source of purchase, the relationship between the parties, and the nature of the transactions. On the pleadings, the issue was not a pure question of law but a mixed question of fact and law, which could not be decided at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11. The stage at which the petition was filed also supported the view that the attempt was meant to delay the trial rather than test a clear statutory bar.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected on either ground and the revision failed.

---