https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274961 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on limitation grounds unless the bar is unmistakably apparent from the plaint itself. Where the plea turns on disputed facts, including title, possession, knowledge of the alleged defect, or whether the relief for possession is consequential to declaration, the issue cannot be decided without evidence. The applicability of Article 58 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act also depends on the nature of the reliefs and factual foundation. The plaint was therefore not barred ex facie by limitation, the rejection was unsustainable, and the suit was restored for trial on merits. en-us Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jan 2024 12:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274961 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on limitation grounds unless the bar is unmistakably apparent from the plaint itself. Where the plea turns on disputed facts, including title, possession, knowledge of the alleged defect, or whether the relief for possession is consequential to declaration, the issue cannot be decided without evidence. The applicability of Article 58 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act also depends on the nature of the reliefs and factual foundation. The plaint was therefore not barred ex facie by limitation, the rejection was unsustainable, and the suit was restored for trial on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274961