https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309689 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) on limitation where the pleaded case raises triable questions on the plaintiff's knowledge, notice, or later discovery of the relevant transactions, especially when fraud and collusion are alleged. The civil court also could not reject the suit for want of jurisdiction merely by invoking the bar under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, because Section 85A contemplates a distinct procedure where tenancy-related issues arise, and the possible application of statutory exemption required fuller examination. The rejection of the plaint was therefore unsustainable, and the suit was restored for decision in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Sep 2023 21:27:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309689 A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) on limitation where the pleaded case raises triable questions on the plaintiff's knowledge, notice, or later discovery of the relevant transactions, especially when fraud and collusion are alleged. The civil court also could not reject the suit for want of jurisdiction merely by invoking the bar under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, because Section 85A contemplates a distinct procedure where tenancy-related issues arise, and the possible application of statutory exemption required fuller examination. The rejection of the plaint was therefore unsustainable, and the suit was restored for decision in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309689