Limitation as a mixed question of law and fact bars threshold rejection where plaint pleads later knowledge and fraud.

Article 59 of the Limitation Act governs cancellation suits from the date the plaintiff first had knowledge of the facts entitling relief. Where the plaint specifically pleads a later date of knowledge and alleges fraud or unauthorised execution, the issue of prior knowledge cannot be decided only on the defendant's version. At the Order VII Rule 11(d) stage, the plaint must be read as a whole and accepted on its averments; the written statement or rejection application cannot be used to defeat the suit. In such circumstances, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence, and revisional interference is justified only for jurisdictional error or perversity. The plaint was therefore not rejectable at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit for declaration and consequential reliefs was barred by limitation, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering in revision with the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint.

Analysis: Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs suits for cancellation of instruments and the period runs from the date when the plaintiff first had knowledge of the facts entitling him to relief. Where the plaint specifically pleads a later date of knowledge and sets out a cause of action founded on fraud or unauthorised execution, the question whether such knowledge existed earlier cannot be decided merely from the defendant's version. At the stage of Order VII Rule 11(d), the plaint must be read as a whole and its averments taken at face value; the defence in the written statement or in the application cannot be used to non-suit the plaintiff. Limitation, in such a situation, becomes a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence. Revisional interference is unwarranted unless the trial court's view suffers from jurisdictional error or perversity.

Conclusion: The plaint could not be rejected at the threshold on limitation, and the trial court was right in refusing to reject it.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was set aside, the trial court's order was restored, and the suit was directed to proceed to trial on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: When the plaint asserts a specific date of knowledge as the foundation of limitation, the issue cannot ordinarily be decided under Order VII Rule 11(d) without evidence, because limitation in such cases is a mixed question of law and fact and the plaint must be accepted as pleaded at the threshold.

---