https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307181 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC unless the bar of limitation is evident from a holistic reading of the plaint itself. The Court held that isolated averments cannot be picked out to test limitation; the pleading must be read as a whole, and continuing correspondence or repeated representations may show later accrual of the right to sue. It further held that Article 113 of the Limitation Act concerns when the right to sue accrues, and where that issue depends on disputed or successive facts, limitation becomes a mixed question of fact and law not fit for threshold rejection. The appeal was allowed and the plaint restored. en-us Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 15:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307181 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC unless the bar of limitation is evident from a holistic reading of the plaint itself. The Court held that isolated averments cannot be picked out to test limitation; the pleading must be read as a whole, and continuing correspondence or repeated representations may show later accrual of the right to sue. It further held that Article 113 of the Limitation Act concerns when the right to sue accrues, and where that issue depends on disputed or successive facts, limitation becomes a mixed question of fact and law not fit for threshold rejection. The appeal was allowed and the plaint restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307181