( 1 ) RULE. With consent of parties the matter is finally heard. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 7. 1. 2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 211 of 2000 by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Baroda, granting the respondents application under order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, observing that the suit is barred by limitation and rejecting the plaint, is before this Court with a submission that the Court below had no jurisdiction to grant the application filed under Rule 11 of Order VII because the provisions of Rule 11 were not applicable.

( 2 ) THE short facts necessary for decision of this appeal are that the plaintiff alleged that he entered into an agreement with the defendant for purchase of certain properties. It was alleged that the defendant refused to execute the Sale Deed, as such the plaintiff was required to obtain a decree from the Court for specific performance. It was also alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff had a cause of action in his favour and the suit was maintainable.

( 3 ) THE defendant after notice appeared before the Court and submitted that the alleged agreement entered into was entered in 3. 2. 1979. There was a flat refusal by the defendant and as the suit wss hopelessly barred by limitation, the plaint deserved to be rejected.

( 4 ) THE trial Court before which written statement was already filed entertained the application and after holding that the suit is barred under clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Civil Procedure Code directed rejection of the plaint.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 shall apply to a case where it does not disclose a cause of action; where the relief claimed is undervalued and despite direction of the Court he does not correct the valuation; where the relief claimed is properly valued but proper Court fees is not paid; where the Suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; where it is not filed in duplicate; where the plaintiff fails to comply with sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 and where the plaintiff fails to comply sub-Rule (3) of Rule 9. The submission is that the Court proceeded under sub-Rule (d) of Rule 11 but without appreciating that the suit was not barred under some law. The submission is that the Suit may be barred by limitation but the Civil Court if has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties then it cannot be said that such a Suit is barred by any law. It is submitted that in a given case if the suit is not within limitation then the Civil Court cannot refuse to entertain the suit but may or may not grant decree. The submission is that question of limitation would not fall within the swoop and scope of clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Civil Procedure Code.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand vehemently submitted that if the suit appears to be barred by limitation from the pleadings and statement made in the plaint then no useful purpose would be served by going on with the ordeal of the trial and even otherwise the suit would be barred by law as it would be held to be barred by limitations and therefore would be barred by some law. Placing strong reliance on the judgement of the Single Judge in the matter of Lalubhai Hirabhai Patel and Anr. Vs. Indo-Japan Industries reported in 2001 (3) GLR 2254 it is submitted that if the suit appears to be barred by limitation then no relief can be granted.

( 7 ) ORDER VII Rule 11 (?for the purpose of this appeal?) observes that the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: clauses (a), (b), [c]. . . . . . clause (d) ? where suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

( 8 ) A suit which is barred by limitation cannot be said to be a suit barred by any law; the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit but would be precluded from granting any relief to such a person because he has lost his remedy by lapse of time. A suit