A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) where limitation requires adjudication.

The Respondent, claiming to be a legal heir of late Smt. Padmawati and asserting an interest in property bearing No. D-37, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, filed Civil Suit No. 3517/2019 seeking a permanent injunction against Appellant No. 1 to restrain alienation or creation of third-party rights.

During that suit, Appellant No. 1’s written statement dated 8 January 2020 relied, for the first time according to the Respondent, upon a registered Gift Deed dated 7 June 2007 and a registered Will allegedly executed by Smt. Padmawati in his favour.

The injunction suit was dismissed on 7 March 2020 on the ground that a bare injunction suit was not maintainable in view of the title dispute; however, liberty was granted to institute a comprehensive suit for declaratory and consequential reliefs.

The Respondent’s appeal against that judgment was withdrawn on 27 May 2024, after which she instituted CS(OS) 464/2024 seeking, inter alia, declarations that the Gift Deed and Will were null and void, partition, and permanent injunction.

The Appellants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, alleging that the declaratory relief was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 18 August 2025, leading to the present appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.

Whether the plaint, read as a whole, disclosed an unequivocal bar of limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act so as to warrant rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC?

Whether the Respondent’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation-exclusion orders and the possible benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act rendered limitation a matter requiring adjudication at trial rather than rejection at the threshold?

Article 58 of the Limitation Act prescribes a three-year limitation period for a suit seeking a declaration, commencing when the right to sue first accrues.

Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, a plaint may be rejected only where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint itself to be barred by law; the court must therefore determine whether the plaint leads unequivocally to that conclusion, without relying on the defence.

The Supreme Court’s orders in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3 of 2020, including the order dated 10 January 2022, directed exclusion of the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 while computing limitation.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act permits exclusion of time spent bona fide and with due diligence in prosecuting an earlier civil proceeding which could not be entertained for want of jurisdiction or a cause of a similar nature; it does not enlarge limitation but only excludes the relevant period.

This principle was reaffirmed in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 169.

Although the Respondent pleaded knowledge of the Gift Deed and Will on 8 January 2020, which would ordinarily result in expiry of the three-year period under Article 58 on 7 January 2023, the plaint also relied on the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 exclusion orders.

After excluding the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022, the limitation period was extended sufficiently to cover the suit instituted on 27 May 2024.

Independently, the plaint disclosed the earlier injunction proceedings, the grant of liberty to pursue comprehensive reliefs, and the subsequent appeal.

These facts furnished a possible foundation for invoking Section 14, although the Respondent’s bona fides, due diligence, and satisfaction of the statutory requirements would require evidence.

Consequently, the plaint did not establish an unequivocal limitation bar on its face, and the Appellants’ objection could not be conclusively determined under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

The COVID-19 exclusion period and the possible application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act raised matters requiring adjudication in the suit, including after framing of issues and leading of evidence.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed; all questions concerning limitation and the merits of the parties’ rival claims were left open for determination in the suit.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.