### Rejection of Plaint Denied Where Plea of Limitation Involves Mixed Questions of Law and Fact

The plaintiff filed a commercial suit for the recovery of Rs. 9,99,680/- plus interest arising from the sale and delivery of goods to a partnership firm (Defendant No. 1).

The plaintiff alleged that a "mutual, open, current and running account" was maintained and that as of December 19, 2015, an unpaid balance of Rs. 10,24,680/- existed.

To discharge this liability, the defendants allegedly issued a cheque dated July 27, 2020, which was subsequently dishonored.

Defendant No. 2 filed the instant application (IA No. GA-COM/2/2021) seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, contending the suit was ex-facie barred by the Law of Limitation since the cause of action purportedly arose in 2015/2016, while the suit was filed in 2021.

1. Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the claim is barred by the law of limitation.

2. Whether the question of limitation in this specific instance constitutes a pure question of law or a mixed question of law and fact.

The court applied the settled principles governing the rejection of a plaint, specifically that the statements made in the plaint must be accepted as true, correct, and sacrosanct at the threshold stage.

For a plaint to be rejected on the ground of limitation as a "point of demurrer," a meaningful reading of the plaint must show it is ex-facie barred by law.

The court further considered the principle that if an issue involving limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, it cannot be decided summarily in an application for rejection of plaint but must be relegated to trial.

The Court conducted a "meaningful reading" of the plaint, specifically paragraphs 10 and 11, and noted that while goods were supplied in 2014-2015, the plaintiff pleaded the existence of a "running account" and part payments made "from time to time".

The Court observed that the plaint does not explicitly state the date of the last part payment, which is critical for determining the starting point of limitation.

Additionally, the plaintiff relied on a cheque issued in July 2020 as an acknowledgement of liability.

Defendant No. 2 argued that an acknowledgement after the expiry of the limitation period cannot revive a debt, but the Court held that because the exact timeline of payments and the nature of the account were not ex-facie clear from the pleadings, the plea of limitation became a mixed question of law and fact.

Consequently, the Court determined that the matter could not be decided summarily without a trial.

It held that the issue of limitation was not ex-facie clear from the plaint and required adjudication at trial.

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the limitation defense and left the point open for the defendants to raise during the trial.

No orders were made as to costs.