The main legal point established in the judgment is that the truthfulness of the narration of facts in the plaint or the accuracy and integrity of the document should not be judged at the stage of rejection of the plaint. Additionally, the need for evidence to resolve disputed interpretations of the partnership deed was emphasized.

Nandita Dubey, J.

Present case concerns itself with the legality of the order dated 16.07.2016, passed by Eighth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in C.S. No.7-A/2012, whereby the application filed by the defendant No.2/petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.

2. Respondents herein filed a civil suit on 12.05.2012, interalia claiming the following reliefs :-

(a) to issue a decree dissolving the defendant No.1 firm;

(b) to grant a decree directing the defendants to produce and settle the accounts of the Firm and direct payment of the share of the plaintiff put of such accounts i.e., Accounts of the credits, property and effects belonging to the partnership firm, and accounts of all the assets and liabilities of the partnership including Registered Trademarks and Tradenames and the subsidiary holdings in Schedule A as well as an account of all dealings and transactions between the plaintiff and defendants from the inception of the Firm uptill the date of preparation of final decree of dissolution;

(c) to appoint a competent person as a receiver to take accounts and complete the process of winding up as aforesaid;

(d) to issue a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the assets of the Firm or dealing with the business of the firm i.e., credits, property and effects belonging to the partnership firm and all the assets and liabilities of the partnership including Registered Trademarks and Tradenames and the subsidiary holdings in Schedule-A, which is in any way prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff;

(e) To award the cost of the suit against the defendants and

(f) To grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts of the case to the plaintiff.

3. During the pendency of the civil suit, the petitioner herein moved an application to reject the plaint under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the C.P.C., as according to him the suit was barred by limitation in view of the fact that the Firm stood dissolved on 15.05.2005, on the death of First Party as per the clause 10-b of the partnership deed dated 30.04.1986.

4. The plaintiff resisted the application on the ground that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided at the preliminary stage under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the C.P.C.

5. The trial Court observed that the suit is based on the partnership deed dated 30.04.1986, which contains different clauses regarding dissolution of the Firm and as the parties relying on different clauses of the partnership deed have disputed the date of dissolution of the Firm, and question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, it would not be possible to decide the same without recording the evidence. The Trial Court further observed, that issue in this regard has been framed and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the application of the petitioner.

6. Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the approach of the trial Court is clearly erroneous. Respondent No.1 has prayed for dissolution of the Firm and rendition of accounts relying on the clauses of the partnership deed dated 30.04.1986. Under the circumstances, the partnership deed filed along with the plaint could be looked into for deciding the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. Learned Sr. Counsel in support of his contention has relied on Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) 8 SCC 706, wherein para 18 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held:

"It is settled law that when a document is sued upon and its terms are not set out in the plaint but referred to in the plaint, the said document gets incorporated by reference in the plaint."

It is further urged that Clause 10(b) of the partnership deed stipulates that on the death of First Party to the Firm, the