https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469898 Article 59 of the Limitation Act governs cancellation suits from the date the plaintiff first had knowledge of the facts entitling relief. Where the plaint specifically pleads a later date of knowledge and alleges fraud or unauthorised execution, the issue of prior knowledge cannot be decided only on the defendant's version. At the Order VII Rule 11(d) stage, the plaint must be read as a whole and accepted on its averments; the written statement or rejection application cannot be used to defeat the suit. In such circumstances, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence, and revisional interference is justified only for jurisdictional error or perversity. The plaint was therefore not rejectable at the threshold. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 20:43:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469898 Article 59 of the Limitation Act governs cancellation suits from the date the plaintiff first had knowledge of the facts entitling relief. Where the plaint specifically pleads a later date of knowledge and alleges fraud or unauthorised execution, the issue of prior knowledge cannot be decided only on the defendant's version. At the Order VII Rule 11(d) stage, the plaint must be read as a whole and accepted on its averments; the written statement or rejection application cannot be used to defeat the suit. In such circumstances, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence, and revisional interference is justified only for jurisdictional error or perversity. The plaint was therefore not rejectable at the threshold. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469898