A.K. Singh, J.Heard.

2. This petition has been filed against the order dated 6-11-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (South). Udaipur, rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the lower Court has committed a mistake of law in passing the impugned order dated 6-11-1998 inasmuch as the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., in view of the statements made by the plaintiff himself in the plaint.

4. Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, C.P.C. reads-- "where the suits appears on the statement in the plaint to he barred by any law". A bare perusal of Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, C.P.C. shows that for the purpose of invoking this clause the suit must be barred by any law in view of the statements made by the plaintiff himself in the plaint. In the instant case. I am afraid that the requirement of Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, C.P.C. is not fully satisfied because the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 12/14-10-1998 when the plaintiffs prayer for grant of gold medal was rejected. Whether this statement is or is not correct does not arise for consideration at this stage. Suffice it to say that the above-mentioned statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint that the suit was within limitation as the cause of action had accrued on 12/14-10-1998, does not attract the provisions of Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, C.P.C.

5. It is common knowledge that parties may lake such interpretation of law as they may be advised and in matter relating to limitation, the plaintiff may assert that the period of limitation should be counted from a particular date. The defendant may or may not agree with such a view. If a controversy arises, the trial Court has to decide this controversy in accordance with law after hearing both the parties and taking such evidence regarding the disputed question of fact, as may be necessary. Such disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application filed under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. In my considered opinion. Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7, C.P.C. applies to those cases only where the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law in the force. In view of the above position of law as to the interpretation of Clause (d) of Rule II of Order 7, C.P.C., the impugned order dated 16-11-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipur does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Nothing contained in this order shall preclude the defendant-appellant from raising the plea of limitation and in case the defendant takes plea in the written statement that the suit is barred by limitation, the learned trial Court will have to decide the question of limitation in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties.

6. The petition is disposed of accordingly at the admission stage.