Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court while discussing rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, discussed the expression “right to sue accrues”.   
• The Judgment was delivered by a 3- judge Bench consisting of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice AM Khanwilkar.   

Facts

• The appellant, M/s. Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd., filed a suit on 23rd February 2005 before the Court of Civil Judge–05, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, seeking rendition of true and correct accounts from the respondent–Central Bank of India concerning current account No. CCM 20225 for the period between 1st April 1997 and 31st December 2000. 
• The suit also included a claim for recovery of excess amounts allegedly charged by the Bank, along with interest at 18% per annum, including pendente lite and future interest. 
• On 6th January 2016, the trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, ruling that the suit was barred by limitation, as the right to sue had accrued in October 2000, and the suit was filed more than three years later. 
• The appellant contended that the cause of action arose only later, upon receiving letters of denial from the Bank dated 19th September 2002 and 3rd June 2003, and after issuing a final legal notice on 7th January 2005. 
• The trial court rejected this argument by relying on the Delhi High Court decision in C.P. Kapur v. The Chairman & Ors., holding that subsequent correspondence does not extend the limitation period once the cause of action has initially accrued. 
• On 23rd July 2016, the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, dismissed the first appeal, affirming the rejection of the plaint. 
• On 2nd January 2017, the High Court of Delhi dismissed the second appeal , once again affirming that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 
• The appellant had also invoked Articles 2, 3, and 22 of the Limitation Act to argue that the suit was filed within limitation, but all courts found Article 113 applicable, as no specific article dealt with suits for rendition of accounts against banks. 
• The appellant has now filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts, asserting that the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) was incorrect and premature.

Issues Involved 

• Whether in the facts of the present case the suit should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC?  

Observations 

• Entire plaint must be read: The Court reiterated that the plaint must be read as a whole, not in parts, when deciding on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of plaint. 
• Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC must consider whole averments: The trial court, appellate court, and High Court erred in failing to examine the plaint in its entirety before rejecting it under Order VII Rule 11(d). 
• Cause of action arises from firm denial: The Court held that the cause of action accrued to the appellant when the bank firmly denied the appellant’s claims in its letters dated 8.5.2002 and 19.9.2002. 
• Limitation under Article 113 CPC begins from accrual of right to sue: The Court emphasized that under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation starts from when the right to sue accrues, which may not be the first violation, unlike Articles 58 or 104. 
• The expression “right to sue accrues” has distinct meaning: The use of the term "right to sue accrues" in Article 113 does not imply "first" accrual. Reading "first" into it would be rewriting the law and contrary to legislative intent. 
• Cause of action involves a bundle of facts: It was reiterated that the cause of action consists of a bundle of facts and cannot be pinpointed to one isolated event alone. 
• Limitation often involves mixed questions of fact and law: Whether a suit is barred by limitation is generally a mixed question of fact and law and should not be decided summarily at the stage of Order VII Rule 11(d). 
• Right to sue triggered by bank’s firm response: The Court found that the letters from the Bank, particularly dated 19th September 2002, constituted a firm rejection of the appellant’s claim, giving rise to a definite cause of action. 
• Trial on merits required: The Court concluded that the plaint disclosed triable issues, including on limitation, which need to be decided after evidence is led. 
• Plaint restored for trial: The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court, and restored the plaint to the file of the trial court for trial on merits. 
• All issues remain open: The Court clarified that all contentions, including the issue of limitation, are left open to be decided based on pleadings and evidence without being influenced by the observations in this judgment. 

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a plaint must be examined in its entirety to determine whether it discloses a cause of action, and rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is not warranted when the existence of limitation involves disputed factual elements. 
• Since the appellant's right to sue was triggered by a firm denial from the Bank and involved a bundle of facts, the plaint deserved to proceed to trial, and all related issues, including limitation, must be decided on merits after due consideration of pleadings and evidence.