https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377788 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because a statutory bar is pleaded. Where the applicability of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, or the exception in Section 4(3)(b), turns on disputed facts and requires evidence, the bar is not clear on the face of the plaint. The pleadings here alleged purchase of property with the appellant's funds in the father's name and relied on an acknowledgment of ownership, so fuller adjudication was necessary. The plaint therefore could not be rejected at the threshold and the suit had to proceed to trial. en-us Tue, 02 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Apr 2019 06:29:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377788 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because a statutory bar is pleaded. Where the applicability of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, or the exception in Section 4(3)(b), turns on disputed facts and requires evidence, the bar is not clear on the face of the plaint. The pleadings here alleged purchase of property with the appellant's funds in the father's name and relied on an acknowledgment of ownership, so fuller adjudication was necessary. The plaint therefore could not be rejected at the threshold and the suit had to proceed to trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377788