https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200431 A plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) where, on its own averments, the suit was barred on the face of the record. The pleadings showed that the claimed cause of action arose when repayment was allegedly made and reconveyance was demanded, but the suit was instituted years later, making it time-barred. The Court also noted that mutation proceedings did not create a fresh cause of action and that the consequential reliefs should have been sought in the earlier pending suit. The plaint was therefore barred by limitation and by Order 2 Rule 2. en-us Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200431 A plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) where, on its own averments, the suit was barred on the face of the record. The pleadings showed that the claimed cause of action arose when repayment was allegedly made and reconveyance was demanded, but the suit was instituted years later, making it time-barred. The Court also noted that mutation proceedings did not create a fresh cause of action and that the consequential reliefs should have been sought in the earlier pending suit. The plaint was therefore barred by limitation and by Order 2 Rule 2. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200431