Honble SINGH, J.–This petition has been filed against the order dated 6.11.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (South), Udaipur, rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

(2). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the lower court has committed a mistake of law in passing the impugned order dated 6.11.1998 in as much as the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., in view of the statements made by the plaintiff himself in the plaint.

(3). Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 C.P.C. reads- ``where the suits appears on the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.. A bare perusal of clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 C.P.C. shows that for the purpose of invoking this clause the suit must be barred by any law in view of the statements made by the plaintiff himself in the plaint. In the instant case, I am afraid that the requirement of clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 C.P.C. is not fully satisfied because the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 12/14.10.1998 when the plaintiffs prayer for grant of gold medal was rejected. Whether this stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document