2005 Supreme(SC) 1986

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N. VARIAVA, AR. LAKSHMANAN, S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
BALASARIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. - Appellant
VERSUS
HANUMAN SEVA TRUST & ORS. – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4539 OF 2003
Decided On : 19-10-2005

The court declined to rule on whether "barred by law" under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure includes the law of limitation, as the question was academic to the specific facts of the case.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11(d) - Rejection of plaint - Whether the words "barred by law" include the law of limitation - Question referred to larger Bench - Both parties agreed that an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) can be based on the law of limitation - Decision in the case depends on the specific facts - Question held to be academic in the present context - No reason to decide the question in this case.

Facts of the case:
An appeal was referred to a larger Bench of the court to consider whether a plea of limitation could form the basis of an application for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the legal question referred was academic so far as the specific case was concerned, as both parties acknowledged that such applications can be based on limitation and the final decision would depend on the facts of the case.

Issues: Whether the expression "barred by law" under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure includes the law of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a referred legal question is academic to the specific facts of the case and does not impact the final decision, the court may decline to answer the question and remit the matter for disposal on merits.

Result: Matter sent back to a 2-Judge Bench for disposal on merits.