A plaint should not be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure for non-compliance of the provisions contained in S.80 of the Code unless it is clear and specific admission in the plaint from which it follows that the suit is barred.

R. P. MOOKERJEE, J. :- This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chandernagore, rejecting a plaint on the ground that the provisions of S.80, Civil P.C., had not been complied with. The order was passed immediately after the plaint was filed and before any notice had been issued on the defendants.

2. I need refer only to such of the relevant facts as would be necessary to appreciate the objection raised suo motu by the learned Subordinate Judge and the contentions raised by the parties before this Court.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit against certain individuals in their personal capacity and also as members of the Council of Administration, or the Municipal Assembly, as the case may be, of the Free City of Chandernagore. The said Council and Assembly were also impleaded as party defendants. The suit was one for a declaration that a certain resolution passed by the Council of Administration was illegal and invalid. There were further prayers for certain mandatory orders on the defendants including the Council and the Assembly and the other defendants in their capacity as members of those bodies.

4. The plaint was originally filed on the 4th December 1951, and was immediately rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure for non-compliance of the provisions contained in S.80 of the Code. A fresh plaint was filed the next day, and the learned Subordinate Judge heard the Counsel for the plaintiff and reserved his orders. The next day the learned Subordinate Judge again came to the conclusion that the plaint must be rejected as the Chandernagore Administration was a Government under S.80 of the Code. No notice having been served under that section the plaint must be rejected.

5. On behalf of the plaintiff appellant, it is contended that the Subordinate Judge should not have rejected the plaint at the stage when he had so done. It is not possible to finally decide the question whether either the Council or the Assembly can be regarded as "the Government" under S.80, Civil P.C., or any one of the other defendants as "public officers". Mr. De has further contended that the Chandernagore Administration is a Local Self-Government body and not the Government.

6. Under R.11, O.7, Civil P.C.,

"The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases :

* * *

(d) when the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law."

7. This clause is attracted only when on the admitted facts as appearing from the plaint itself the suit is prima facie barred. As for instance when from the statements made in the plaint it appears that the cause of action arose beyond the period of limitation fixed under the Statute and no indication is given that limitation has been saved, the plaint may be rejected. Even in such a case, an opportunity is to be given to the plaintiff to amend the plaint by setting out an acknowledgment in writing signed by the defendant within the period of limitation if it is so prayed, and that without passing an order for rejection of the plaint. - Gunnaji Bhavaji v. Makanji Khoosal Chand, 34 Bom 250. As was observed in - Ratan Chand v. Secy. of State, 18 Cal WN 1340, action is to be taken under O. VII, R.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure only if there is a clear and specific admission in the plaint from which it follows that the suit is barred. Reference may also be made to the observations of this Court in - Pran Krishna v. Kripanath, 21 Cal WN 209.

8. Let us now consider whether on the plaint as filed the Court will be justified in rejecting in limine the plaint under cl. (d), R.11, O.7, Civil P.C. In the body of the plaint there is no admission that the Council or the Assembly is the Government under S.80, Civil P.C. On the other hand, it is seriously contested on behalf of the plaintiff that neither of the two bodies can even be deemed to be the government. The learned Subordinate Judge refers in his order vaguely to the

"trend