https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276783 A plaint should not be rejected at the threshold where limitation or maintainability depends on disputed facts requiring evidence and factual appreciation. The court held that an objection based on limitation could not be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when the alleged breach, implementation and refusal of a family arrangement were in dispute, and the suit was not barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act merely because the defendant asserted an equally efficacious remedy or denied a concluded contract. A new legal ground raised for the first time in appeal against an interlocutory order was also declined, as it would ordinarily not be entertained if it prejudices the opposite party. The refusal to reject the plaint was sustained. en-us Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Nov 2018 12:00:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276783 A plaint should not be rejected at the threshold where limitation or maintainability depends on disputed facts requiring evidence and factual appreciation. The court held that an objection based on limitation could not be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when the alleged breach, implementation and refusal of a family arrangement were in dispute, and the suit was not barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act merely because the defendant asserted an equally efficacious remedy or denied a concluded contract. A new legal ground raised for the first time in appeal against an interlocutory order was also declined, as it would ordinarily not be entertained if it prejudices the opposite party. The refusal to reject the plaint was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276783