📘 ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) – STATUTORY BAR CHART

---

1️⃣ Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Section 12A – Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation

🔹 If no urgent interim relief & mediation not done → plaint barred.
🔹 Rejection under O7R11(d).

Authority:
Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited (2022) 10 SCC 1

---

2️⃣ Limitation Act, 1963

Section 3 – Bar of limitation

🔹 If suit ex facie time-barred from plaint → reject.

Authority:
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366

---

3️⃣ Specific Relief Act, 1963

Section 41 – Injunction barred in certain cases

🔹 If plaint seeks injunction expressly prohibited under Sec 41 → reject.

---

4️⃣ Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988

Section 4 – Suit to enforce benami right barred

🔹 Real owner cannot file civil suit claiming benami property.

Authority:
R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan

---

5️⃣ SARFAESI Act, 2002

Section 34 – Civil Court jurisdiction barred

🔹 If matter relates to measures under Sec 13(4), civil suit barred.

Authority:
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India

---

6️⃣ Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act)

Section 18 – Jurisdiction barred

🔹 Matters triable by DRT → Civil suit barred.

---

7️⃣ Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

Section 8 & 5 – Judicial intervention limited

🔹 Where arbitration clause exists and application under Sec 8 filed, civil court must refer.
(Though technically return, in some cases plaint rejected if barred.)

---

8️⃣ Companies Act, 2013

Section 430 – Civil Court jurisdiction barred

🔹 Matters within NCLT jurisdiction → civil suit barred.

---

9️⃣ Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Section 63 & 231 – Bar of civil court

🔹 Matters within NCLT/NCLAT domain → barred.

---

🔟 Wakf Act, 1995

Section 85 – Bar of civil jurisdiction

🔹 Matters required to be determined by Wakf Tribunal → civil suit barred.

---

1️⃣1️⃣ Tenancy / Rent Control Acts (State Acts)

Example:
Gujarat Rent Act / Bombay Rent Act

🔹 Where exclusive jurisdiction given to Rent Court → civil suit barred.

---

1️⃣2️⃣ Land Revenue Codes

Revenue matters (mutation, tenancy rights etc.)
→ Exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities.

---

1️⃣3️⃣ Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 9–13 read with Section 19

🔹 Matrimonial disputes only before Family Court → civil suit barred.

---

1️⃣4️⃣ Family Courts Act, 1984

Section 7 & 8 – Exclusive jurisdiction

🔹 Civil court barred in family matters.

---

1️⃣5️⃣ Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Industrial disputes → Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal domain.

---

🧠 EXAM READY RULE 11(d) TEST

Court must check:

1. Does the plaint itself disclose statutory prohibition?

2. Is the bar absolute?

3. Is there exclusive tribunal jurisdiction?

4. Is compliance mandatory (like Sec 12A CCA)?

If YES → Reject plaint.

---

⚖ MOST FREQUENTLY USED IN PRACTICE (Trial Courts)

✔ Limitation Act
✔ Commercial Courts Act (Sec 12A)
✔ SARFAESI Act
✔ Benami Act
✔ Rent Control Acts

📘 ORDER VII RULE 11(d) – STATUTORY BAR TABLE

(“Suit barred by any law” – as disclosed from plaint itself)

| 1 | Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Sec 12A | Mandatory pre-institution mediation (if no urgent interim relief) | Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited (2022) 10 SCC 1 | Guj HC (2023–2024): Commercial suits rejected for non-compliance with Sec 12A relying on Patil Automation |

| 2 | Limitation Act, 1963 – Sec 3 | Suit ex-facie time barred | Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020) 7 SCC 366 | Guj HC regularly applies Dahiben in O7R11(d) limitation cases (2022–2025 line) |

| 3 | SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Sec 34 | Civil court jurisdiction barred where DRT remedy available | Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311 | Guj HC dismisses civil suits challenging Sec 13(4) action citing Sec 34 bar (recent consistent view) |

| 4 | Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – Sec 18 | Exclusive DRT jurisdiction | Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan (2001) 6 SCC 569 | Guj HC: Civil suits against bank recovery proceedings barred under Sec 18 |

| 5 | Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sec 63 & 231 | Civil court barred in matters within NCLT/NCLAT domain | Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2019) 13 SCC 308 | Guj HC (2022–2024): Civil suits rejected where CIRP pending before NCLT |

| 6 | Companies Act, 2013 – Sec 430 | Civil court jurisdiction barred in NCLT matters | Shashi Prakash Khemka v. NEPC Micon (2019) 18 SCC 569 | Guj HC: Share oppression/mismanagement suits rejected due to Sec 430 bar |

| 7 | Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Sec 4 | Suit to enforce benami right barred | R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (1995) 2 SCC 630 | Guj HC applies Sec 4 bar in property declaration suits |

| 8 | Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sec 8 & 5 | Judicial authority must refer parties to arbitration (minimal intervention) | Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) 2 SCC 1 | Guj HC (2022–2025): O7R11 applications allowed where arbitration clause clearly bars civil action |

| 9 | Wakf Act, 1995 – Sec 85 | Exclusive Wakf Tribunal jurisdiction | Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) 8 SCC 726 | Guj HC rejects civil suits relating to Wakf property management |

| 10 | Family Courts Act, 1984 – Sec 7 & 8 | Exclusive family court jurisdiction | K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida (2003) 4 SCC 166 | Guj HC: Civil courts lack jurisdiction in matrimonial/property between spouses matters |

| 11 | Rent Control / Tenancy Laws (e.g., Gujarat Rent Act) | Exclusive Rent Court jurisdiction | Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1969 SC 78 (jurisdiction test) | Guj HC: Civil suits barred where Rent Court competent |

| 12 | Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 | Industrial dispute triable only by Labour Court/Tribunal | Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke (1976) 1 SCC 496 | Guj HC: Civil suits by workmen barred when ID Act remedy available |

---

⚖ Core Legal Test (From SC Jurisprudence)

Derived mainly from:

• Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali

• Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited

✔ Bar must be apparent from plaint
✔ No defence material considered
✔ Statutory bar must be express or necessarily implied
✔ If mandatory pre-condition not fulfilled → rejection inevitable

📊 Gujarat High Court – Order VII Rule 11(d) Cases (2023–2025)

---

🧠 KEY PATTERN (Based on These HC Judgments)

👉 High Court rejects plaint at threshold only if bar by law is immediately apparent from the pleadings themselves (no defence evidence required).
👉 Common statutory bars seen invoked include Limitation Act bar and other statutory jurisdictional bars where suit is simply not maintainable on its face.
👉 HC decisions repeatedly affirm that only the plaint’s contents are to be considered for statutory bar analysis under O7R11(d) (defence/sole facts outside the pleadings not considered).

---

📌 Summary of What This Table Shows

✔ These are recent Gujarat High Court applications of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC from 2023 to 2026.
✔ Most hinge on bar by statute apparent in the plaint — e.g., limitation or other statutory prohibition.
✔ Not all result in rejection — sometimes HC clarifies law bar can only be decided on prima facie clear grounds.