Structured Summary of the Opinion (A.K. Singh, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This petition challenges an order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (South), Udaipur, which rejected an application filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. The opinion records that the impugned order was dated 6.11.1998 (and later refers to an impugned order dated 16.11.1998). The appellant's counsel contended that the plaint ought to have been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. because, according to statements made in the plaint by the plaintiff himself, the suit was barred by law (limitation).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., particularly clause (d) of that Rule, on the ground that the plaint itself shows the suit to be barred by any law.
2. Whether the statements made by the plaintiff in the plaint (that the cause of action accrued on 12/14.10.1998 when the plaintiff's prayer for grant of a gold medal was rejected) bring the suit within the bar of limitation for the purpose of Order 7 Rule 11 clause (d).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that the lower court erred in refusing to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., because the plaint's own statements demonstrate that the suit is barred by law (limitation).

Plaintiff's Pleaded Position (as recorded in the plaint)

• The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the cause of action accrued on 12/14.10.1998 when the plaintiff's prayer for grant of a gold medal was rejected, and on that basis asserted that the suit was within the period of limitation.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning proceeds from a textual interpretation of clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, C.P.C., which the opinion quotes as applying "where the suit appears on the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law." The court explains the following points:

• Clause (d) can be invoked only where, on the face of the plaint itself and in light of the plaintiff's own statements, the suit is shown without doubt to be barred by law.
• In the instant case the plaintiff has alleged that the cause of action arose on 12/14.10.1998 (the date when the plaintiff's request for a gold medal was rejected). Whether that factual assertion is correct is not a matter for determination at the stage of an Order 7 Rule 11 application.
• Questions as to the date from which limitation should be computed often involve disputed issues of fact or differing legal interpretations; parties may advance different views. Where such controversy exists, the appropriate forum for resolving it is the trial court after hearing both parties and, if necessary, receiving evidence.
• Therefore, disputed questions of fact or interpretation relevant to limitation cannot be resolved on an application under Order 7 Rule 11; clause (d) applies only when the plaint itself, without any doubt or dispute, shows the suit to be barred.
• Applying this interpretation to the present record, the court found that the requirement of clause (d) was not satisfied and hence the impugned order rejecting the appellant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 did not suffer from legal infirmity.
• The court expressly preserved the defendant-appellant's right to raise a plea of limitation in the written statement; if such a plea is taken, the trial court must decide the limitation question in accordance with law after hearing both parties.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF AT THE ADMISSION STAGE

Holding (core ruling): The petition is disposed of at the admission stage. The impugned order of the trial court refusing to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. (clause (d)) does not suffer from legal infirmity on the material before the court.

Implications and consequences:

• The appellant is not precluded from raising the plea of limitation at trial; if raised in the written statement, the trial court must adjudicate the limitation question after hearing the parties and taking such evidence as may be necessary.
• The court's decision is a determination at the admission stage that the plaint does not, on its face and without doubt, show the suit to be barred by law; the opinion does not purport to decide the substantive limitation question on merits.
• The opinion does not state any broader precedent beyond its interpretation that clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. applies only where the plaint shows without doubt that the suit is barred; it confines itself to the direct effect on the present parties and the proper procedure at trial.

Note: The text of the opinion refers to an impugned order dated 6.11.1998 at the outset and later refers to an impugned order dated 16.11.1998; the summary reproduces the dates as they appear in the provided opinion.