25 Tricky Hypotheticals – Order 7 Rule 11(d)

📘 25 Tricky Hypotheticals – Order 7 Rule 11(d)


1️⃣ Limitation – Declaration After 15 Years

Problem: Plaintiff challenges a 2008 sale deed in 2024. No plea of fraud delay explained.

Answer: Reject plaint. Time-bar apparent from plaint.
Case: Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali


2️⃣ Clever Drafting to Avoid Limitation

Problem: Plaintiff avoids mentioning date of knowledge.

Answer: Court can read plaint meaningfully; if dates inferable, reject.
Case: T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal


3️⃣ Commercial Suit Without Sec 12A Mediation

Problem: No urgent relief pleaded; mediation not done.

Answer: Mandatory rejection under Rule 11(d).
Case: Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited


4️⃣ SARFAESI Action Challenged in Civil Court

Problem: Bank takes possession u/s 13(4). Borrower files civil suit.

Answer: Bar under Sec 34 SARFAESI. Reject.
Case: Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India


5️⃣ IBC Moratorium in Force

Problem: Suit filed for recovery during CIRP.

Answer: Civil jurisdiction barred (Sec 63 IBC).
Case: Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka


6️⃣ Arbitration Clause Exists

Problem: Agreement contains arbitration clause; defendant invokes Sec 8.

Answer: Court must refer; civil suit not maintainable.
Case: Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation


7️⃣ Benami Claim Filed

Problem: Plaintiff claims property purchased in another’s name.

Answer: Suit barred under Sec 4 Benami Act.
Case: R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan


8️⃣ Wakf Property Dispute in Civil Court

Problem: Tenant disputes Wakf status before Civil Judge.

Answer: Wakf Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction.
Case: Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf


9️⃣ Matrimonial Property Suit in Civil Court

Problem: Husband files civil suit instead of Family Court.

Answer: Jurisdiction barred under Family Courts Act.
Case: K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida


🔟 Industrial Dispute Filed in Civil Court

Answer: Bar under Industrial Disputes Act.
Case: Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke


11️⃣ Suit Against Company During NCLT Proceedings

Answer: Sec 430 Companies Act bars jurisdiction.
Case: Shashi Prakash Khemka v. NEPC Micon


12️⃣ DRT Matter Filed in Civil Court

Answer: Sec 18 RDDBFI Act bars suit.
Case: Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan


13️⃣ Injunction Prohibited Under Specific Relief Act

Answer: If barred under Sec 41, reject.


14️⃣ Rent Dispute Filed in Civil Court

Answer: Rent Act exclusive jurisdiction applies.
Test Case: Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh


15️⃣ Partial Limitation – Mixed Question

Problem: Some relief time-barred, others not.

Answer: If bar not apparent for entire plaint → cannot reject partially (whole plaint principle).
Case: Church of Christ Charitable Trust v. Ponniamman Educational Trust


16️⃣ Fraud Alleged to Save Limitation

Answer: If vague fraud pleaded without particulars → reject.
Case: Dahiben (2020)


17️⃣ Suit Filed Without Statutory Notice (Mandatory)

Answer: If statute mandates prior notice (and none pleaded) → reject under 11(d).


18️⃣ Challenge to Revenue Entry in Civil Court

Answer: If statute gives exclusive revenue remedy → bar applies.


19️⃣ Plaintiff Seeks Relief Against Government Without Sec 80 CPC Notice

Answer: Not 11(d); return/reject under 11(a) or procedural defect — depends on facts.


20️⃣ Limitation Requires Evidence

Answer: If limitation not clear from plaint → cannot reject.
Case: Dahiben principle.


21️⃣ Suit Filed Despite Arbitration Award

Answer: If award binding and not set aside → barred by Arbitration Act scheme.


22️⃣ Commercial Suit Filed Pre-Patil Automation (Retrospective?)

Answer: SC held Sec 12A mandatory but applied prospectively from 20.08.2022.
Case: Patil Automation.


23️⃣ Declaratory Suit Against Completed SARFAESI Auction

Answer: Civil Court barred; DRT remedy exclusive.
Mardia Chemicals.


24️⃣ Suit Filed Despite Statutory Appeal Remedy

Answer: If statute expressly bars civil court → reject (Dhulabhai test).


25️⃣ Plaintiff Suppresses Bar in Pleading

Answer: Court can examine entire plaint meaningfully; clever omission won’t help.
Case: T. Arivandandam (1977)


🧠 Golden Rule for Rule 11(d)

✔ Bar must appear from plaint itself
✔ Court assumes plaint facts true
✔ Defence irrelevant
✔ Mandatory statutory prohibition → immediate rejection

Derived from:

  • Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali

  • Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!