Din v Bahadur (C.A. .23-1932..)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Court of Appeal held that where a suit is not wholly barred by limitation, the plaint should not be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. The proper course is to admit the plaint for hearing and deal with the time-barred portions at trial. The appeal was allowed and the plaint restored.
Outcome
Plaint restored for hearing in the Supreme Court
Facts
The plaintiff sued in the Supreme Court for Sh. 2,874, being balance of salary for work done on the defendant's behalf from 1 May 1927 to 30 September 1930 at varying monthly rates, and for cash advanced on behalf of the defendant. Credit was given for certain items received by the plaintiff. The plaint was filed on 26 August 1932. The trial judge rejected the entire plaint on the ground that transactions prior to March 1928 were statute-barred by limitation, reasoning that there was no power to reject part of a plaint and that the word 'shall' in Order VII Rule 11 required rejection of the whole plaint.
Issues
- Whether a court has power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 where only part of the relief claimed is barred by limitation.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Plaint restored.
- Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Cases cited (1)
- Raghubans Puri v Jijotis Swarupa (29 All. 325)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.