Pecuniary bar and statutory civil court exclusion justify rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), not return.

A plaint in a money suit that is barred on the face of the plaint by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC because the court is confined to the plaint averments and cannot examine the defence. Order VII Rule 10 CPC applies only where the court lacks territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction and the plaint can be presented elsewhere; a total statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction stands on a different footing. Proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal are commenced by application under Section 19 of the 1993 Act, not by plaint, so return of the plaint was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaint in a money suit, disclosed on its face to be barred by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or returned under Order VII Rule 10 of that Code.

Analysis: Order VII Rule 11(d) mandates rejection of a plaint where, on the plaint averments alone, the suit appears barred by any law. The Court must confine itself to the plaint and cannot examine the defence. Order VII Rule 10 applies where the court lacks territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction and the plaint can be presented before another civil court. A total statutory bar on the civil court's jurisdiction stands on a different footing from absence of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. Proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal are instituted by application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, not by presentation of a plaint. Rejection of the plaint also does not amount to dismissal of the suit on merits.

Conclusion: The plaint was correctly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d), and return of plaint was not warranted.

---