( 1 ) THIS revision is preferred by the defendants, feeling aggrieved by the order rejecting their application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of C. P. C. .

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision are as follows - Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration about his date of birth and arrears of salary. The respondent/plaintiff also sought a relief that it be declared that his superannuation was illegal. Respondent was in service of the applicant as Deputy Chief Finance manager. The respondent alleges that he was unilaterally superannuated by the applicant in august, 1996. It is his case that at the time of his appointment in 1975, he had submitted a matriculation certificate as well as affidavit of his father that his correct date of birth was 10/ 8/1948. This proof by way of affidavit was accepted by the applicant. However, in 1991, when respondent/plaintiff received seniority list, he noticed that his date of birth is recorded in the

office record as 10/08/1938. The respondent immediately wrote to the applicant to correct the mistake. The applicant informed by letter dated 8/5/1991 that the date is correctly recorded and there is no need to make any change. The respondent, therefore, made a representation. Ultimately, the respondent was served with a notice of superannuation w. e. f. 31/8/1996. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging this notice of superannuation but he later withdrew the said petition. Thereafter, respondent filed this suit on 17/12/2007 challenging the superannuation and the refusal to change the date of birth.

( 3 ) THE applicant/defendant appeared before the trial court and filed application under order 7, Rule 11 (d) of C. P. C. mainly contending that the plaint is defective and is liable to be rejected as the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The learned Judge of the trial court rejected the application and the defendants feel aggrieved thereby.

( 4 ) I have heard Shri. Mehadia. learned counsel for the applicants and Shri. S. V. Manohar, learned counsel for the respondent.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant contends that the plaintiffs own pleadings would show that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The counsel for the respondent submits that this court need not go into the aspect whether the suit is barred by limitation or not, but must consider the question whether the suit being barred by limitation could be the ground falling under Rule 11 (d) of Order 7 of c. P. C. Rule 11 of Order 7 of C. P. C. reads thus-

"11. Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to so correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9 : [provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. ]

( 6 ) WHAT rule 11 (d) says is that the plaint is liable to be rejected where it is barred by law. I think the controversy can be resolved and should in fact be resolved without entering into the question as to whether the suit is