1. The plaintiff-respondents, hereinafter referred to as the respondents, filed a suit for a declaration that the acquisition of Schedule ‘B’ property in LA Case No. XI/16 of 1965-66 was illegal and void. A prayer for injunction restraining Defendants 13 to 18 from changing the nature and character of Schedule ‘D’ property by alienating/transferring the same in any manner whatsoever and also from undertaking any construction thereon was also prayed for. Defendant 18 in the suit, the appellant herein, instead of filing the written statement filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint which was termed as dismissal of the suit.

2. The trial court dismissed the application, aggrieved against which the appellant filed CO No. 1512 of 2002 which has been decided by the impugned order. The learned Single Judge, although did not agree with the reasoning given by the trial court, went on the merits of the matter and dismissed the revision application.

3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the High Court the present appeal by way of special leave has been filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies upon a judgment of this Court in N.V Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma 2005 5 SCC 548 [LQ/SC/2005/673] for the proposition that a plaint could be rejected if the suit is ex facie barred by limitation. The Bench did not consider the import of the words “barred by law” occurring in Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC exhaustively. This point has been specifically dealt with by the different High Courts in Mohan Lal Sukhadia University v. Priya Soloman AIR 1999 Raj 102 , [LQ/RajHC/1999/1] Khaja Quthubullah v. Govt. of A.P AIR 1995 AP 43 [LQ/TelHC/1994/216] , Vedapalli Suryanarayana v. Poosarla Venkata Sanker Suryanarayana 1980 1 An LT 488, Arjan Singh v. Union of India AIR 1987 Del 165 [LQ/DelHC/1986/149] and State Bank of India Staff Assn. v. Popat & Kotech Property 2001 2 Cal LT 34 wherein it has been held that the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) cannot be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. According to these judgments the suit has to be barred by a provision of law to come within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. A contrary view has been taken in Jugolinija Rajia Jugoslavija v. Fab Leathers Ltd. AIR 1985 Cal 193 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Navrom Constantza AIR 1988 Cal 155 [LQ/CalHC/1987/182] and J. Patel & Co. v. National Federation of Industrial Coop. Ltd. AIR 1996 Cal 253 [LQ/CalHC/1995/324]

5. Counsel for the respondent also relied upon a recent judgment of this Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. 2005 7 SCC 510 [LQ/SC/2005/854] decided on 29-8-2005 in support of the proposition that Order 7 Rule 11(d) would not be applicable in a case where a question has to be decided on the basis of the fact that the suit was barred by limitation.

6. Keeping in view the importance of the question and the conflict of opinion, we deem it appropriate to direct that the matter be placed before a larger Bench. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders.