ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION (Application Dismissed)

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, [SENIOR DIVISION], [PLACE]
Civil Suit No. ___ of 20__
[Plaintiff] … Plaintiff
Versus
[Defendant] … Defendant

ORDER BELOW EXH. __ (Order VII Rule 11 CPC)

Date: //20__

The defendant has filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC contending that the suit is barred by limitation and therefore the plaint deserves to be rejected.
It is contended that the transaction in question took place in the year __ and hence the present suit is beyond limitation.
Heard learned advocates for both sides. Perused the plaint carefully.
The settled legal position is that for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), only the averments in the plaint are to be considered, and the defence raised by the defendant cannot be looked into. This principle is reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra.
A meaningful reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he became aware of the alleged fraud on //20__, and that the cause of action is continuing. Whether such plea is correct or not is a matter requiring evidence.
The question of limitation in the present case involves determination of disputed facts and cannot be decided merely on the basis of plaint averments in isolation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta
has held that where the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact, rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is not permissible.
In the present case, the alleged bar is not apparent on the face of the plaint. The matter requires adjudication after framing of issues.

ORDER

The application Exh. __ under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC stands dismissed.

The suit shall proceed in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Court on this __ day of , 20.

(Civil Judge, SD)
[Place]

🔎 Key Gujarat High Court Drafting Features Reflected