Pleading-based scrutiny under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC bars early rejection on benami, limitation, and court-fee objections.

In an Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments and cannot test the defendant's version at that stage. A suit pleaded as involving joint Hindu family property was therefore not barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 on the plaint alone, and general maintainability objections were not decided preliminarily. Limitation, being dependent on disputed facts, was treated as a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence, so it could not be decided at the threshold. The trial court's acceptance of valuation and court fee on the plaint basis was also found unobjectionable at that stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the grounds of benami, limitation, and alleged want of maintainability. (ii) Whether the plea of limitation could be decided at the threshold. (iii) Whether the valuation and court fee were liable to be interfered with at the stage of rejection of plaint.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the grounds of benami, limitation, and alleged want of maintainability.

Analysis: For deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint can be looked into. The defendant's version cannot be examined at that stage. The suit was founded on a claim that the property was joint Hindu family property. On that basis, the bar under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was held not to be attracted. The objections as to general maintainability were also not entertained at that stage.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected on these grounds.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of limitation could be decided at the threshold.

Analysis: Limitation depended on facts that could not be conclusively determined merely from the plaint for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11. The issue was treated as a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation could not be decided at the preliminary stage.

Issue (iii): Whether the valuation and court fee were liable to be interfered with at the stage of rejection of plaint.

Analysis: The trial court had accepted the valuation and court fee on the basis of the plaint, and the question of court fee was kept open for later consideration. No illegality was found in that approach at the threshold stage.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted on the question of valuation and court fee at that stage.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order rejecting the Order 7 Rule 11 application did not succeed, and the suit was directed to proceed with filing of written statement and framing of issues.

Ratio Decidendi: In an application under Order 7 Rule 11, the court must confine itself to the plaint averments, and issues involving disputed facts such as limitation or mixed questions of law and fact cannot be finally decided without evidence.

---