Limitation cannot justify rejection under Order VII Rule 11 when the bar depends on disputed facts.

The plaintiff purchased three flats at auctions conducted by the defendant Bank under the SARFAESI Act.

Sale certificates for two flats were registered on 12 September 2012 and for the third on 26 February 2013, but the plaintiff alleged that the Bank failed to deliver vacant physical possession.

The plaintiff claimed interest on the amounts paid until possession was delivered, together with maintenance and other charges allegedly accrued between 2012 and 2025.

Physical possession was delivered on 3 January 2025, following proceedings in W.P. No. 19264 of 2024; the suit was filed on 22 November 2025.

The Bank applied under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC to reject the plaint as time-barred, contending that the claims arose from the 2012 and 2013 sale certificates or, at the latest, the Bank’s reply of 4 February 2020.

Whether the plaint, read as a whole, showed on its face that the suit was barred by limitation and therefore liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC

Whether the alleged continuing failure to deliver possession, the eventual delivery in 2025, and the claims for charges accruing over different periods raised questions of fact and law unsuitable for determination at the threshold

Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, limitation warrants rejection of a plaint only where the bar is apparent from the plaint and the documents relied upon; disputed questions concerning the nature of the obligation, breach, accrual of the right to sue, or applicable Limitation Act provision ordinarily cannot be decided at that stage.

Article 55 of the Limitation Act provides that, for a continuing breach, time runs from when the breach ceases; a wrong is continuing only while the duty breached continues to subsist, not merely because its effects continue (Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (P) Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 103).

State of Gujarat v. M/s. Kothari & Associates, (2016) 14 SCC 761, distinguishes successive breaches, each complete in itself.

A plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; it must be rejected as a whole or not at all (Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (P) Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 780; Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 158).

The plaint alleged more than a claim arising solely from the dates of the sale certificates: it pleaded a continuing failure to deliver possession, demands over time, charges accruing through 2025, and eventual delivery of possession in January 2025.

The Bank’s 2020 reply referred to its inability to proceed with possession because of pending proceedings and refused a refund, but did not expressly disclaim delivery of possession; whether it was a final repudiation and whether the alleged breach continued required factual determination.

The Court therefore could not determine at the threshold when the claims accrued or whether Article 55, Article 113, or another limitation provision applied.

Further, the charges related to different periods, and the Bank itself accepted that at least some damages for the three years preceding suit might be claimable, precluding rejection of the entire plaint.

It dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC without expressing an opinion on limitation or the plaintiff’s ultimate entitlement, leaving the Bank at liberty to pursue its limitation defence in the suit; there was no order as to costs.