VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. This Appeal arises from dismissal of an application bearing IA No.2520/2010 filed under Order VII Rule 11 in CS(OS) No.1054/2004. The Application was for dismissal of the Suit being barred by law of limitation.

2. The said Suit is for recovery of amount of ` 20,20,311/- along with interest. The Plaintiff in his Suit avers that he had extended loans to the Defendant on various dates commencing from 17.07.1996 to 30.03.2000. All these amounts were paid by cheques. The Defendant made some payments towards discharge of his liability to the Plaintiff from 25.10.1997 till 06.05.1999. It is stated that no payment was made after that date, however, the Appellant offered to transfer his car bearing DL-1CG-0189 and Chassis No.101964 and Engine No.001022 for a consideration of ` 5,60,000/- which amount was to be set off against the total loan amount due. An Agreement to Sell for the said car was also entered into by the parties on 28.08.2001 to transfer the ownership of the same to the Plaintiff after getting it cleared from the hypothecation made with the Citibank.

3. In this Suit, the pleadings are complete and the Issues have been struck. It is at this stage that the Appellant filed his Application for rejection of suit on the ground of the bar of limitation as, according to the Defendant, the Suit has been filed three years after the last payment made by the Plaintiff as averred in the Plaint itself. He further states that the Agreement for the sale of the car make no mention of any loan transaction and thus cannot be construed as an acknowledgment.

4. The Defendant has objected to the Application firstly that it has been filed at a belated stage and secondly that in light of a specific Issue having been framed regarding the plea of limitation. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the Plaintiff on ITC Limited –vs- Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1998 SC 634 where their Lordships have opined ?that the fact that issues have been framed in the suit cannot come in the way of consideration of this application filed by the appellant under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC?. The learned Single Judge has held that the Plaint narrates a series of transactions between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 by way of advancing of loans and repayment by the Defendant. These transactions and the relevant dates are reflected in the Books of Account of the Plaintiff and are admissible under Section 34 of Evidence Act, 1872 and on those premises the suit is within limitation, and thus the Plaintiff has a right to prove his case in the Trial, and he cannot be non-suited at a preliminary stage.

5. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The power vested in a Civil Court to reject a plaint on a preliminary examination is very harsh and has to be used with circumspection. In Abdul Gafur –vs- State of Uttarakhand, (2008) 10 SCC 97 their Lordships have held that every person has an inherent right to bring a civil suit to a Civil Court unless specifically barred by any law. Their Lordships while referring to another Judgment of Supreme Court, namely, Church of North India –vs- Lavajabhai Ratanjibhai, (2005) 10 SCC 760 further held thus – It is trite that the rule of pleadings postulates that a plaint must contain material facts. When the plaint read as a whole does not disclose material facts giving rise to a cause of action which can be entertained by a civil court, it may be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Similarly, a plea of bar to jurisdiction of a civil court has to be considered having regard to the contentions raised in the plaint. For the said purpose, averments disclosing cause of action and the reliefs sought for therein must be considered in their entirety and the court would not be justified in determining the question, one way or the other, only having regard to the reliefs claimed dehors the factual averments made in the plaint.

6. We find it pertinent to mention, in