Plaint cannot be rejected in piecemeal where mixed questions of law and fact require trial.

The appellants (plaintiffs) purchased Plot No. 6/B via a registered sale deed dated 24.10.1997 from Defendant No. 1

Subsequently, Defendant No. 1 allegedly executed a second sale deed for the same plot to Defendant No. 2 in 1999, who then mortgaged it to the Gujarat State Finance Corporation (Defendant No. 4)

Following a default, Defendant No. 4 took possession in 2001 and auctioned the property to Defendant No. 3, who later sold it to Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in 2014

Plaintiffs originally filed Regular Civil Suit No. 159 of 2010 but withdrew it on 22.03.2016 with liberty to file a fresh suit to avoid technical defects regarding subsequent transactions

They filed the present suit (Special Civil Suit No. 47 of 2016) seeking cancellation of the 1999 and 2014 sale deeds and recovery of possession

The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, holding the suit barred by limitation as the 1999 deed was challenged beyond three years

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on the grounds of limitation

2. Whether a plaint can be rejected in a piecemeal manner when multiple reliefs (cancellation of deeds and possession) are sought, some of which may require evidence

The Court applied Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates the rejection of a plaint where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law

It relied on the principle that only averments in the plaint and supporting documents—not the defense—can be considered at this stage

Furthermore, the Court adhered to the doctrine that a plaint cannot be rejected in piecemeal; if any part of the cause of action or any specific relief requires a trial, the entire plaint must proceed

The High Court observed that the Trial Court erred by focusing solely on the 1999 sale deed's limitation period.

It noted that the plaintiffs are registered title-holders (1997 deed) and the validity of the subsequent 1999 deed by a seller who had already divested title is a triable issue

The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs sought not only cancellation of deeds but also "recovery of possession," and the determination of when possession became "unlawful" is a pure question of fact

Because the suit involved mixed questions of law and fact—specifically regarding the legality of the auction, the search of records by the Financial Corporation, and the actual date of dispossession—the Court held that the bar of limitation was not apparent strictly from the face of the plaint

It held that the Trial Court cannot invoke Order VII Rule 11(d) to reject a plaint at the threshold when the reliefs sought require evidence to be recorded

The Court restored Special Civil Suit No. 47 of 2016 to the original file and directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings, preferably within one year