Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Piyush Sharma,Adv. Mr. Dushyant Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Chandra Pandey, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Surya Kant, AOR Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The primary issue concerns whether the trial court (Single Bench) could have framed a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 regarding the limitation question, which was a mixed question of law and fact, for the purpose of rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC (!) .

2. There is a question whether the appellate court (Division Bench) exceeded its scope of appeal by applying Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which was not the issue before the Single Bench, to reject the plaint (!) .

3. The correctness of the courts' reliance on documents and written statements that were not part of the plaint while rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) is challenged. The courts are accused of committing an error of law apparent on the face of record by considering extraneous materials (!) .

4. The legal position clarifies that the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) should be based solely on the averments in the plaint and not on external documents or written statements, especially when the issue involves a mixed question of law and fact, or when fraud is pleaded, requiring an opportunity for evidence (!) (!) .

5. The question of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be decided as a preliminary issue unless the facts are admitted or undisputed, and the issue can be decided solely on the basis of the pleadings (!) (!) .

6. When the suit involves allegations of fraud, the limitation period may be extended if the plaintiff demonstrates that the fraud was concealed or that they could not have discovered it with reasonable diligence. The burden is on the plaintiff to specify the date of discovery of the fraud or mistake (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

7. The pleadings must contain specific facts and particulars, especially when relying on fraud or exemption from limitation, including dates and attributes, to justify exemptions or extensions under the law (!) .

8. The courts should not have considered documents outside the plaint or relied on the written statements for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d). Such reliance constitutes a legal error (!) .

9. The orders passed by the Single and Division Benches, which rejected the plaint based on extraneous materials and on the basis of issues that are not purely legal, are in violation of the statutory provisions and principles of law. These orders are liable to be quashed and set aside (!) (!) .

10. The procedural provisions in the CPC regarding the framing of preliminary issues, rejection of plaint, and judgments on admissions are distinct and must be applied within their scope. The exercise of inherent or suo moto powers outside these provisions is impermissible and results in legal error (!) (!) (!) (!) .

11. The court emphasizes that the rejection of a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation must be based solely on the averments in the plaint, without considering extraneous evidence or documents (!) .

12. The procedural law mandates that issues of law, especially concerning limitation, be decided only if they are purely legal questions, and cannot be resolved as preliminary issues when they involve disputed facts or questions of mixed law and fact (!) .

13. The orders of rejection based on the application of Order XII Rule 6, which relies on admissions outside the scope of the pleadings, are improper. Admissions must be clear, unequivocal, and unconditional to be used for such judgments (!) .

14. The legal framework prohibits courts from exercising inherent powers to bypass statutory procedures, and the proper course is to proceed with the suit in accordance with the law, especially when procedural violations occur (!) (!) .

15. Overall, procedural misapplications and reliance on extraneous materials by the courts led to a miscarriage of justice, warranting the setting aside of the impugned orders and the restoration of the suit for proper adjudication (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.