A suit for injunction can be brought before the act is committed and is not barred by time because the act sought to be restrained is yet to be carried out.

( 1 ) THIS is a regular second appeal arising from an injunction suit. The plaintiff had filed the suit claiming that an award under Land Acquisition Act was ultra vires and void, (a) because the acquisition was made for a purpose other than a public purpose and (b) certain conditions precedent like publication of notice under section 4 at convenient places had, in fact, not been made in the locality of the suit property. It was further claimed that the plaintiffs were in physical possession and that cause of action against the intended dispossession was a continuing one. The prayer in the suit was that the defendant be restrained from taking possession of the suit land.

( 2 ) IN the written statement a number of preliminary objections were taken, one of which was that a notification u/s. 4 could only be challenged within one year and secondly the proper defendant in the case was Union of India through the Administrator, Lt. Governor, and the suit was barred by law and hence the plaint was liable to be rejected under O. 7, R. 1 l (d ). There was a further pleading that the plaint was vague and therefore, also the plaint had to be rejected under O. 7, R. ll (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 3 ) A number of issues were framed in the suit. The two relevant issues being the preliminary issues were :

(1) whether the suit is within limitation? and (6) Whether the notice u/s. 80, Civil Procedure Code is invalid?

( 4 ) THESE two issues were tried as preliminary issues and the learned Judge held that the 6th issue was to be decided in favour of the plaintiff as notice u/s. 80 was valid but on the first issue it was held that the plaintiff had the full knowledge of the acquisition proceedings and of the award dated 10-1-1973. The plaintiff having failed to challenge the notification under section 4, could not challenge the same in the suit and hence the suit was barred by time and the plaint was liable to be rejected under O. 7, R. 11.

( 5 ) ON appeal, this conclusion was upheld. There is considerable discussion in the judgment of the Appellate Court regarding whether Art. 110 of the Limitation Act is applicable or any other Article.

( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the suit could not have been decided in this way nor could the plaint have been rejected under O. 7, R. 11. The reason for this is available in O. 7, R. 11, Civil Procedure Code itself. This provision allows a plaint to be rejected in certain circumstances. It is unnecessary to deal with sub-cls. (a) (b) and (c) of the rule. Sub-rule (d) is involved which reads as :

" (D) where a suit appears to be barred by any law. "

( 7 ) NORMALLY, a plaint has to be rejected not by taking evidence, or reading the written statement, but by finding out what is contained in the plaint itself. So, we have to see in this case whether there is a statement in the plaint which shows that the suit is barred by law. There are two statements in the plaint which are of any relevance in this behalf. One is that there has been an award but the date is not mentioned. Let us take it that the award is dated 10-1-1973 and we can assume for argument s sake that this date is specified in the plaint. The next paragraph of the plaint states that this award is a nullity because (a) the purpose specified is not of public purpose and (b) the condition precedent being the notification under S. 4 has not been specified in accordance with law. For purpose of seeing whether a plaint is within time or not every allegation of the plaint has to be, assumed correct. Therefore, we assume that the award is invalid for the purpose of determining whether the suit is within time. If there is an invalid award which is being acted upon and the plaintiff claims that he has also to be dispossessed in furtherance of the same, so the respondent should be restrained from dispossessing him, a question arises what is the limitation period. A suit for injunction, in my view,