How to determine whether a suit is maintainable under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC in light of time-barred claims and prior partitions? What is the court's approach to re-opening or not re-opening a previously concluded partition in a civil suit? What are the limits on revisiting previous partition and the role of limitation and cause of action in maintaining a suit seeking declaration, partition, and possession?

Key Points: - The judgment holds that a suit can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if it is time-barred, lacks a cause of action, or seeks to reopen a valid previous partition. (!) - The court found the plaintiff’s suit time-barred and lacking a cause of action, and that the previous partition was valid and could not be reopened, justifying dismissal under Order 7 Rule 11. [27000465070002][27000465070016] - It cites the principle that a partition effected by mutual agreement cannot be reopened unless fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or undue influence is shown, and emphasizes strict proof of facts. [27000465070012][27000465070011] - The decision discusses that the trial court’s order under Order 7 Rule 11 was set aside and the civil revision allowed, resulting in dismissal of the suit. [27000465070017] - It references statutory and doctrinal authorities on when to exercise the drastic power of Order 7 Rule 11 and that the plaint must be read as a whole to determine cause of action or bar. (!) [27000465070014] - It notes earlier proceedings: previous order dismissals and remand for fresh consideration, culminating in dismissal on revision. [27000465070004][ORDER/JUDGMENT]

How to determine whether a suit is maintainable under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC in light of time-barred claims and prior partitions?

What is the court's approach to re-opening or not re-opening a previously concluded partition in a civil suit?

What are the limits on revisiting previous partition and the role of limitation and cause of action in maintaining a suit seeking declaration, partition, and possession?