Summary
Plaints seeking accounts and refund of allegedly excess bank charges were restored after erroneous threshold rejection for limitation. The courts isolated discovery of discrepancies in 2000 while overlooking pleaded assurances of review and firm refusals in 2002. Article 113 refers to accrual of the right to sue, unlike provisions expressly referring to its first accrual. On a whole-plaint reading the suits were not plainly barred; limitation and all other contentions remained open for trial.
Issues
- Whether the plaints disclosed a limitation bar warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d).
- How the pleaded bank correspondence and Article 113 affected accrual of the right to sue.
Provisions considered
- Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963The residuary three-year period runs when the right to sue accrues; the courts could not insert first into its text. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The entire plaint, rather than selected assertions or the defence, governed threshold examination of the alleged limitation bar. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 20, 21, 22)
Held
- A plaint must be read meaningfully as a whole for threshold rejection; defence contentions are irrelevant at that stage. The courts below wrongly isolated the pleaded 2000 discovery without analysing the remaining cause-of-action averments. (¶¶ 6, 7, 20)
- The pleaded bank assurances and subsequent firm refusals in May and September 2002 could trigger the right to sue. Even disregarding later correspondence and legal notices, the February 2005 suits were not shown barred on that pleaded basis. This was not a ruling that correspondence generally extends an already-running period. (¶¶ 7, 8, 13, 14, 15)
- Article 113 uses when the right to sue accrues, whereas Article 58 expressly refers to first accrual. Its distinct language could not be rewritten. Accrual and the legitimacy of the pleaded circumstances involved factual and legal questions requiring adjudication. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Both plaints were restored. All contentions, expressly including limitation on the written statement and evidence, remained open without influence from the Court’s factual observations at the rejection stage. (¶¶ 21, 22, Companion appeal:3)
Result
Both appeals allowed; rejection orders and appellate affirmances set aside and plaints restored for proceedings according to law. All contentions including limitation kept open. No costs.