A plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The respondents filed a commercial recovery suit for ₹5,39,209, with interest and costs, alleging outstanding bills.

The revisionist sought rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, arguing that the suit was time-barred. He relied on the plaint’s reference to a notice dated 27 May 2020 and argued that a later notice dated 15 July 2024 could not revive the claim.

The Commercial Court rejected the application, finding that whether the 2017 and 2022 transactions were linked or separate, and whether the claim was time-barred, required evidence; it also noted that the 2022 transactions were not alleged to be time-barred.

The revisionist challenged that order under Section 115 CPC.

1. Whether the plaint, on its face, showed that the recovery suit was barred by limitation and therefore liable to rejection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.

2. Whether the Commercial Court’s refusal to reject the plaint disclosed a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 115 CPC.

Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC permits rejection where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by law; however, a plaint cannot be rejected only in part (Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1407, para. 11, quoted at p. 4, para. 6; see also Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P) Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 780, and Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 158).

Limitation may present a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be decided without evidence where the relevant facts are disputed (Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta, (2006) 5 SCC 638; Chhotanben v. Kirtibhai Jalkrushanbhai Thakkar, (2018) 6 SCC 422).

Section 115 CPC permits revisional interference where the subordinate court has committed a jurisdictional error.

The plaint referred to pending bills and alleged transactions spanning 2017 and 2022. The Court held that whether those transactions formed a connected series or were separate transactions could not be determined without evidence.

Because the 2022 transactions were not alleged to be time-barred, rejecting the plaint on limitation grounds would in effect amount to partial rejection, which Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not permit.

In light of the factual questions involved, the Commercial Court had properly declined to decide limitation at that stage; the High Court found no jurisdictional error warranting revision.

Finding no jurisdictional error or gross illegality in the Commercial Court’s order, it dismissed the civil revision.