The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act to determine the time-barred nature of the reliefs claimed in the suit.

.1. In a suit filed by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’), application of the appellant (‘defendant’ in the said suit and hereinafter referred as such) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned orders dated 7.4.2008. The attempt of the defendant, thus, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the relief being time barred has failed in the trial court. Not satisfied with the outcome of her application, this appeal is preferred challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.

2. It is but necessary to know the nature of the suit and traverse the averments made in the plaint, on the basis of which the suit is filed, to find out as to whether the suit of the plaintiff is ex-facie time barred. Reason is simple. When an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to be considered, the Court is not to see the defence raised in the written statement by the defendant or the documents filed by the defendant in support. Application is to be decided on the basis of averments made in the plaint, taking the same on their face value at that stage, while considering such an application. It is for this reason the learned Single Judge has also started discussion in the impugned order from the reading of the plaint. Since the averments made in the plaint, as recorded by the learned Single Judge, are not in dispute, we may reproduce the same as it is :

3. One Ms. Abnash Kaur was the Plaintiff’s elder sister, as also of the first and third Defendants, mother of the fifth defendant and the aunt of the second and fourth defendant. She was married to one Mr. Shiva Prasad, who had, it is averred, given cash running into several lakhs of rupees and jewellery as gifts, in addition to the amount paid by him for running the household. It is submitted that he transferred the shares in Lord Krishna Mills Ltd. in her name as consideration for the marriage. It is also averred that out of the said amounts she purchased property No. 3, South End Road, New Delhi in 1956 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- and the sale deed was duly registered. The present suit is being filed in relation to this property.

.4. It is averred that Smt. Abnash Kaur was in exclusive possession of the said property and was residing therein, until it was handed over to the Vietnam Embassy on rental basis in the name of her sister-the first Defendant. A part of the property was also rented out to Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. in the year 1956. In the year Mr. Shiva Prasad passed away leaving behind Abnash Kaur, the fifth Defendant - her minor son, and seven sons from the first marriage as his only heirs. It is also alleged that the sons from the first marriage fraudulently obtained her signatures, came into complete control of the Mill and misappropriated huge sums of money. She informed them that she would not tolerate the mismanagement of funds, objected to the HUF status given to the estate of the deceased and threatened legal action for winding up the company. She also informed them that along with her son and the step sons she would have claim to the property and each of the nine people were entitled to 1/9th share in the property.

5. It is also averred that when she refused to stand guarantee for the company, being one its directors, Mr. Seth Bimal Pershad and his brothers (her stepsons) tried to pacify her by assuring her that the company would be managed by a committee of which she would be a part and no decision would be taken without consulting her. They also clarified that they had fraudulently obtained her signatures to ensure that no estate duty was to be paid on the their father’s estate, and that they were aware that she was the exclusive owner of the said property in South end Road as well as precious jewellery and other amounts lying in the bank accounts and lockers. Through a letter dated 14th April 1958 it was also agreed tha