Key Points: - The court held that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided without evidence [11000767420015][11000767420016]. - The court affirmed that a judgment/decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law, and may be challenged in various proceedings (including revision) (!) (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court guidance that Order VII Rule 11 CPC should consider only the plaint and documents filed with it, and not pleadings outside the plaint, though issues of fraud and limitation may require trial evidence [11000767420013][11000767420023]. - The Revision Petition upheld the Trial Court’s decision to continue the suit and not reject the plaint at this stage, recognizing the complexity and triable issues requiring evidence [11000767420027][11000767420029]. - The judgments cited establish that fraud in obtaining decrees can be investigated and affect the validity of decrees and subsequent claims (!) (!) (!) (!) .

What is the scope and proper application of Order VII Rule 11 CPC in rejecting a plaint where allegations of fraud and limitation are involved?

What is the correct treatment of limitation as a mixed question of law and fact in the context of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?

What are the consequences for a final decree obtained by fraud on the court and its impact on maintainability and claims in subsequent litigation?