Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC permits rejection of a plaint when ex-facie barred by limitation.

The appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that a sale deed dated 13.04.1977 was void and not binding, alongside reliefs for possession and permanent injunction

The plaintiff alleged that his deceased father intended only to execute a 20-year lease in favor of Defendant No. 1, but the defendants fraudulently executed an outright sale deed

Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), contending the suit was barred by limitation and lacked a valid cause of action

The Trial Court rejected the plaint, holding the suit was filed decades after the statutory period prescribed under the Limitation Act

This was affirmed by the First Appellate Court

The plaintiff then approached the High Court in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC

Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground of limitation based solely on the averments made within the plaint.

Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the bar of limitation and lack of cause of action involve a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the CPC.

The Court primarily applied Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC, which mandates the rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by any law

It relied on Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Hede and Company (2007) 5 SCC 614, establishing that "law" under Order 7 Rule 11(d) includes the law of limitation

the Court applied Section 100 of the CPC, which restricts the scope of a Second Appeal to "substantial questions of law" and prohibits interference with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or recorded de hors the pleadings

The Court also referenced State of Rajasthan vs. Shiv Dayal (2019) 8 SCC 637 regarding the limited grounds for challenging concurrent findings in a Second Appeal

The Court observed that the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is a procedural tool to filter out "sham litigation" at the threshold by looking strictly at the averments in the plaint

In this case, the plaintiff challenged a sale deed from 1977 in a suit instituted in 2018, nearly four decades later

The Court found that the plaintiff failed to specify when he obtained knowledge of the alleged fraud or irregularities to justify such a delay

Applying the principle that the law of limitation bars the remedy after the prescribed period, the Court held that the Trial Court was correct in rejecting the plaint as the statements therein clearly demonstrated the claim was time-barred

Regarding the Second Appeal, the Court noted that the appellant sought a re-appreciation of evidence, which does not constitute a substantial question of law

The Court found no perversity or legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts

It held that the suit was clearly barred by limitation based on the plaintiff’s own pleadings, and therefore, the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC was just and legal

The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration