Order 7 Rule 11(d) bar must be apparent from the plaint; limitation and Order 2 Rule 2 could not justify summary rejection.

A plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) only when the bar of law is apparent from the plaint itself. On the pleaded facts, the suit for possession based on title through succession, along with a challenge to the defendants' will and mutation entries, raised mixed questions of law and fact; mutation was only fiscal, and limitation was not ex facie established because Article 65 of the Limitation Act applied and adverse possession had to be proved by the defendant. The suit was also not prima facie barred by Order 2 Rule 2, as the earlier suit had not been tried on merits. The plaint could not be summarily rejected and the suit was directed to proceed on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: For rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d), only the averments in the plaint can be considered. The plaint disclosed a claim of title through succession, a challenge to the will set up by the defendants, and a claim for possession based on title. Mutation entries are fiscal in nature and do not confer title. The pleadings also indicated that the mutation proceedings culminated in 2017 and the suit followed within three years. For a suit for possession based on title, Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 applies, and adverse possession is a matter for proof by the defendant. Limitation on these pleadings was not ex facie established.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation, and the limitation plea was not fit for decision at the threshold.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The earlier suit instituted by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant had not been tried on merits and had been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11. In such circumstances, a fresh suit with appropriate relief could not be treated as prima facie barred by Order 2 Rule 2. The issue required examination in the suit rather than summary rejection of the plaint.

Conclusion: The suit was not liable to be rejected as barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the trial court's order was unsustainable, and the suit was directed to proceed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of Order 7 Rule 11(d), the plaint can be rejected only if the bar of law is apparent from the plaint itself; where title, possession based on title, mutation, and adverse possession raise mixed questions of law and fact, and where a prior untried suit does not clearly attract Order 2 Rule 2, the plaint cannot be rejected summarily.

---