A limitation defence requiring factual adjudication cannot justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11.

The appellant filed a commercial suit for recovery after pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ended as a non-starter.

The suit, filed on 23 October 2021, claimed an outstanding balance arising from supplies made on credit.

The plaint referred to payments made in November 2017 and June and September 2018, a ledger account, and a C-form issued under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

The respondents sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, including on limitation.

The Commercial Court rejected the territorial-jurisdiction objection but held the suit time-barred, calculating limitation from the last invoice dated 31 January 2016 and its 15-day payment period.

The appellant appealed.

Whether the suit could be rejected as time-barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where deciding limitation required examination of the parties’ account, later payments, the C-form, and the COVID-19 limitation-extension orders.

Whether the Commercial Court could assess the evidentiary effect of the C-form and the alleged acknowledgment of debt at the threshold stage.

Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must consider the plaint’s averments as a whole, assume them to be true, and ordinarily disregard the defence; rejection is permissible only where the plaint itself establishes a ground under the rule.

The judgment relied on P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Ors., 2025 INSC 598, and Uma Devi & Ors. v. Anand Kumar & Ors., 2025 INSC 434, for the principle that limitation requiring appreciation of evidence is a mixed question of law and fact that cannot ordinarily be decided summarily.

It also relied on Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. Central Bank of India, (2020) 17 SCC 260, which states that limitation ordinarily presents a mixed question of fact and law.

Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs the effect of acknowledgment in writing.

The Supreme Court’s orders in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, must also be factored into the limitation assessment.

The plaint alleged a continuing account, payments after the last invoice, and the issuance of a C-form relating to transactions between the parties.

Determining the nature of the account, the effect of the later payments, and whether the C-form could amount to an acknowledgment under Section 18 required consideration of evidence.

The Court held that the Commercial Court exceeded the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 by deciding those matters and by testing whether the pleaded acknowledgment was substantiated.

The COVID-19 limitation-extension orders also had to be considered when limitation was determined.

These matters were not appropriately resolved at the threshold stage.

It did not determine that the claim was within limitation; the relevant issues, including the effect of the payments, C-form, account, and COVID-19 orders, remained for determination in the suit.