https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794046 A plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 when limitation, jurisdiction, and cause of action depend on disputed facts and the pleading discloses a triable civil claim. The Calcutta HC note states that the plaint, read as a whole, alleged continuing joint enjoyment, later denial of rights, and exclusion from assets, so Article 58 limitation could not be decided on selective excerpts. It further notes that the suit was framed as one for joint ownership and inheritance rights, with company-related consequences only incidental, so Section 430 did not bar civil court jurisdiction. The plaint therefore disclosed a sufficient cause of action and was permitted to proceed. en-us Tue, 31 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jun 2026 09:28:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794046 A plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 when limitation, jurisdiction, and cause of action depend on disputed facts and the pleading discloses a triable civil claim. The Calcutta HC note states that the plaint, read as a whole, alleged continuing joint enjoyment, later denial of rights, and exclusion from assets, so Article 58 limitation could not be decided on selective excerpts. It further notes that the suit was framed as one for joint ownership and inheritance rights, with company-related consequences only incidental, so Section 430 did not bar civil court jurisdiction. The plaint therefore disclosed a sufficient cause of action and was permitted to proceed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 31 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794046