Criminal negligence — Degree of negligence — “Gross” negligence mandatory For negligence to amount to an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the degree of negligence must be gross or of a very high degree. Simple lack of care, error of judgment or accident is insufficient to attract criminal liability. Paras: 48–52, 59–60, 65–67 Criminal law — Mens rea — Essential requirement In criminal negligence, the element of mens rea cannot be excluded. The accused must have acted with such recklessness or indifference to consequences as to amount to a crime against the State. Paras: 44–47, 58–60

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-A

---

Criminal negligence — Degree of negligence — “Gross” negligence mandatory

For negligence to amount to an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the degree of negligence must be gross or of a very high degree.

Simple lack of care, error of judgment or accident is insufficient to attract criminal liability.

Paras: 48–52, 59–60, 65–67

---

Criminal law — Mens rea — Essential requirement

In criminal negligence, the element of mens rea cannot be excluded.

The accused must have acted with such recklessness or indifference to consequences as to amount to a crime against the State.

Paras: 44–47, 58–60

---

Civil negligence and criminal negligence — Distinction

Negligence actionable in tort is distinct from negligence punishable as a crime.

What may constitute negligence in civil law does not necessarily constitute criminal negligence.

Paras: 42–45, 58–61

---

Section 304-A — Rash or negligent act — Proximate cause

The rash or negligent act must be the direct, proximate and efficient cause of death, and not merely a remote or indirect cause.

Paras: 63–64

---

Medical Negligence

---

Medical professionals — Standard of care

A medical professional is required to exercise:

• reasonable degree of skill and knowledge; and

• reasonable degree of care.

He does not assure a cure nor guarantee success.

Paras: 68–71

---

Bolam test — Applicability in India

The test laid down in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) governs determination of medical negligence in India.

A doctor is not negligent if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals.

Paras: 72–75

---

Professional negligence — Two circumstances attracting liability

A medical professional may be held negligent if:

1. he lacked the requisite skill which he professed to possess; or

2. he failed to exercise reasonable competence in applying that skill.

Paras: 71–72

---

Error of judgment — Not negligence per se

A mere error of judgment or failure of treatment does not amount to negligence.

Paras: 76–79

---

Deviation from normal practice — Not conclusive

Deviation from standard practice is not negligence unless the course adopted is one which no ordinary competent professional would have taken.

Paras: 74–77

---

Res ipsa loquitur — Limited application

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence applicable primarily in civil cases.

It has limited or no application for proving criminal negligence under Section 304-A IPC.

Paras: 80–83

---

Criminal prosecution of doctors

---

Requirement of expert medical opinion

Before proceeding against a doctor for criminal negligence, an independent and competent medical opinion applying the Bolam test is necessary.

Paras: 92–93

---

Arrest of doctors — Restriction

A doctor accused of negligence should not be arrested in a routine manner.

Arrest is permissible only where:

• it is necessary for investigation; or

• there is likelihood of absconding; or

• custodial interrogation is required.

Paras: 94–95

---

Precedents Considered

---

• Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2004) 6 SCC 422 — approved

• Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, (1965) 2 SCR 622 — followed

• Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, (1968) 2 SCR 515 — followed

• Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCC 30 — followed

• John Oni Akerele v. King, AIR 1943 PC 72 — approved

• Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 WLR 582 — adopted

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

---

• Patient suffering from terminal cancer was admitted to hospital at relatives’ insistence.

• Patient developed respiratory distress at night.

• Oxygen cylinder attached was found empty.

• No alternative cylinder was immediately available.

• Patient died before oxygen supply could be restored.

• FIR was lodged alleging carelessness of doctors and nurses.

• Doctors were charge-sheeted under Section 304-A read with Section 34 IPC.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

---

1. Nature of Negligence in Criminal Law

The Court undertook an exhaustive review of:

• English law

• Privy Council decisions

• Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence

and reiterated that:

criminal negligence requires a very high degree of negligence.

---

2. Degree test — “Gross negligence”

Although the word “gross” does not appear in Section 304-A IPC, judicial interpretation has consistently held that:

rashness or negligence under Section 304-A must be read as gross rashness or gross negligence.

---

3. Protection of medical professionals

The Court emphasized that:

• Medicine is an uncertain science.

• Professionals frequently act under emergencies.

• Fear of criminal prosecution would deter doctors from life-saving interventions.

Hence, indiscriminate prosecution would be counter-productive to society.

---

4. Applicability of Bolam test

The Court affirmed that:

• Where multiple acceptable medical practices exist, choosing one cannot constitute negligence.

• Courts cannot substitute their views for medical judgment.

---

5. Reaffirmation of earlier Section 304-A jurisprudence

The Court expressly reaffirmed:

• Kurban Hussein Rangawalla (1965)

• Suleman Mulani (1968)

holding that:

death must be the direct and proximate consequence of the accused’s act.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

---

1. Criminal negligence under Section 304-A IPC requires gross negligence

Negligence to be punishable under criminal law must be gross or of a very high degree; mere error of judgment, accident or lack of care sufficient for civil liability does not constitute criminal negligence.

---

2. Medical professionals are liable only where conduct is such that no competent doctor would have acted similarly

A doctor can be prosecuted criminally only where his act or omission is so reckless or grossly negligent that no medical professional of ordinary prudence would have done or omitted to do such act.

---

3. Bolam test governs criminal prosecution of doctors

Medical negligence must be assessed in light of the medical knowledge available at the time and by applying the Bolam test.

---

GUIDELINES LAID DOWN (BINDING LAW)

Before prosecuting doctors under Section 304-A IPC:

1. Credible expert medical opinion mandatory

2. Opinion must apply Bolam test

3. Routine arrest prohibited

4. Prosecution only where gross negligence is prima facie made out

---

FINAL ORDER

• Criminal proceedings under Section 304-A/34 IPC quashed

• Appeals allowed

---

CONSTITUTIONAL & JURISPRUDENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE

• Landmark authority on criminal medical negligence

• Definitive interpretation of Section 304-A IPC

• Harmonises Kurban Hussein (1965) → Suleman Mulani (1968) → Jacob Mathew (2005)

• Binding precedent protecting medical professionals from frivolous prosecution

• Continues to govern criminal negligence jurisprudence in India

Rash or negligent act — Requirement of proximate cause — Direct nexus mandatory For sustaining a conviction under Section 304-A IPC, it must be proved that the death of the person was caused by the accused by doing a rash or negligent act and that such act was the proximate cause of death. There must be a direct nexus between the death and the rash or negligent act of the accused. Paras: 17–20, 27–29 Section 304-A — Learner’s licence — No presumption of negligence There is no presumption in law that a person holding only a learner’s licence or possessing no driving licence at all does not know driving. For various reasons, not excluding indifference, a person might not have obtained a regular licence. Paras: 23–25

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-A

---

Rash or negligent act — Requirement of proximate cause — Direct nexus mandatory

For sustaining a conviction under Section 304-A IPC, it must be proved that the death of the person was caused by the accused by doing a rash or negligent act and that such act was the proximate cause of death.

There must be a direct nexus between the death and the rash or negligent act of the accused.

Paras: 17–20, 27–29

---

Section 304-A — Learner’s licence — No presumption of negligence

There is no presumption in law that a person holding only a learner’s licence or possessing no driving licence at all does not know driving.

For various reasons, not excluding indifference, a person might not have obtained a regular licence.

Paras: 23–25

---

Section 304-A — Absence of evidence as to manner of accident — Conviction unsustainable

Where there is no evidence showing how the accident occurred or that it was the rash or negligent act of the accused which caused the death, conviction under Section 304-A IPC cannot be sustained.

Paras: 16–20

---

Section 304-A — Proficiency in driving — Not decisive

The question whether the accused was proficient in driving does not conclude the issue.

Absence of proficiency by itself does not establish guilt unless it is proved that such incompetence was the cause of death.

Paras: 26–28

---

Section 304-A — Cause causans — Not cause sine qua non

To impose criminal liability under Section 304-A, the rash or negligent act must be the proximate and efficient cause of death without intervention of another’s negligence.

It must be the cause causans and not merely the cause sine qua non.

Paras: 30–31

---

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 201

---

Essential ingredient — Proof of commission of offence mandatory

To establish an offence under Section 201 IPC, prosecution must first prove that an offence had in fact been committed and not merely that it might have been committed.

Proof of commission of an offence is an essential prerequisite.

Paras: 13–15, 33–34

---

Section 201 — Failure of principal offence — Consequence

Where the principal offence under Section 304-A IPC is not established, conviction under Section 201 IPC cannot be sustained.

Paras: 34–35

---

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

---

Sections 5 and 89 — Owner or person in charge only liable

A person who is neither the owner of the vehicle nor proved to be in charge thereof cannot be convicted under Sections 5 or 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Paras: 11–12

---

Precedents

---

• Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, 4 Bom LR 679 — approved

• Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwalla v. State of Maharashtra, (1965) 2 SCR 622 — followed

• Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1953) SCR 94 — followed

• Juggankhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1965) 1 SCR 14 — distinguished

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

---

1. The first appellant was driving a jeep with only a learner’s licence, without a trainer beside him.

2. The jeep struck a pedestrian, causing serious injuries.

3. The appellants placed the injured in the jeep to take him for treatment.

4. The injured died on the way.

5. The appellants cremated the body.

6. No eyewitness spoke to the manner of driving or circumstances of the accident.

7. High Court itself recorded that there were no witnesses establishing rash or negligent driving.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

---

I. Scope of Section 304-A IPC

The Court reiterated the settled legal position that:

• Mere negligence is insufficient.

• The rash or negligent act must be the proximate cause of death.

• There must be a direct causal connection.

The Court expressly reaffirmed:

“There must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused.”

---

Learner’s licence — No automatic criminal liability

The High Court had presumed negligence solely because the accused possessed only a learner’s licence.

The Supreme Court rejected this approach and held:

• Possession of learner’s licence does not imply lack of driving skill.

• No legal presumption exists that such a driver is incapable of controlling the vehicle.

• Prosecution must prove actual rashness or negligence.

---

Absence of evidence fatal

The Court noted:

• Prosecution failed to prove how the accident occurred.

• Possibility that the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased could not be ruled out.

• No material established that the accused’s act caused the death.

---

Reaffirmation of Kurban Hussein principle

The Court applied the ratio in Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwalla, holding:

• Even where negligence exists, criminal liability arises only when the negligent act is the direct and proximate cause of death.

---

Section 201 IPC

The Court reiterated:

• Proof of disappearance of evidence alone is insufficient.

• Prosecution must first establish commission of an offence.

• When Section 304-A fails, Section 201 automatically fails.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

---

1. Section 304-A IPC

A conviction under Section 304-A IPC can be sustained only when the prosecution proves that the rash or negligent act of the accused was the direct and proximate cause of death; mere possession of a learner’s licence or absence of proficiency in driving does not create criminal liability.

---

2. Section 201 IPC

Proof that an offence has in fact been committed is an essential prerequisite for conviction under Section 201 IPC; where the principal offence is not established, conviction under Section 201 cannot stand.

---

FINAL DECISION

Charge	Result
Section 304-A IPC	Conviction set aside
Section 201 IPC	Conviction set aside
Motor Vehicles Act (Appellant 2)	Conviction set aside
Motor Vehicles Act (Appellant 1)	Conviction sustained
Result	Appeal allowed

---

LEGAL IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISION

• Authoritative reaffirmation of proximate cause doctrine under Section 304-A IPC

• Establishes that driving without licence is not per se criminal negligence

• Confirms that criminal liability cannot rest on presumption

• Strengthens distinction between civil negligence and criminal negligence

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: advocatemmmohanPenal Code, 1860 — Sections 304-A a..1. Section 304-A IPC For an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the rash or negligent act of the accused must be the direct and proximate cause of death, and not merely a remote or indirect cause; where death occurs due to the intervening negligence of another person, criminal liability under Section 304-A does not arise. 2. Section 285 IPC A person is guilty under Section 285 IPC if he knowingly or negligently omits to take proper precautions with fire or combustible matter in his possession so as to guard against probable danger to human life, and proof of previous absence of accidents does not negate such probability.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: advocatemmmohanPenal Code, 1860 — Sections 304-A a...: advocatemmmohan Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304-A and 285 Section 304-A — Rash or negligent act — Requirement of proximate cause — Cause c...

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304-A and 285

---

Section 304-A — Rash or negligent act — Requirement of proximate cause — Cause causans — Intervention of another’s negligence

Held:
For fastening criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC, the death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act of the accused.

The negligent act must be the cause causans and not merely the cause sine qua non.

Where death occurs due to the intervening negligence of another person, the accused cannot be held guilty under Section 304-A.

Paras: 20–24, 26–28

---

Section 304-A — Manager or employer — Absence at scene — Indirect negligence insufficient

The mere fact that the accused allowed burners to be used in the same room where turpentine and varnish were stored, though a negligent act, is not sufficient to hold him guilty under Section 304-A, where the immediate cause of fire was the negligent act of a workman.

Paras: 21–24

---

Section 304-A — Death must be direct result of accused’s act

The words “causes the death” in Section 304-A require that death must be the direct outcome of the accused’s rash or negligent act and not the result of a chain of circumstances indirectly attributable to him.

Paras: 22–24, 27

---

Section 285 — Fire or combustible matter — Negligent omission — Meaning of “probable danger”

Under Section 285 IPC, it is sufficient if the accused knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with fire or combustible matter in his possession as is sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life.

The term “probable danger” does not mean certainty of accident.

Paras: 31–35

---

Section 285 — Breach of licence conditions — Naked fire near combustible substances

Lighting naked fire in proximity to turpentine and varnish in breach of the general and special conditions of municipal licence constitutes negligent omission sufficient to attract Section 285 IPC.

Paras: 32–34

---

Section 285 — Previous absence of accident — Irrelevant

The fact that no accident had occurred earlier under similar working conditions does not establish absence of probable danger to human life.

Paras: 35–36

---

Distinction between Sections 304-A and 285 IPC

Section 304-A requires proof of direct causal connection between negligence and death.

Section 285 is attracted where there is negligent handling or omission involving fire or combustible matter creating probable danger, irrespective of whether such danger actually resulted in death.

Paras: 28–37

---

Sentence — Maximum punishment justified

Considering that seven human lives were lost, imposition of maximum sentence under Section 285 IPC cannot be said to be harsh.

Para: 38

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

---

Undisputed factual background

1. The appellant was the manager and working partner of a factory manufacturing paints and varnish.

2. The factory was licensed only for cold process manufacture.

3. The appellant converted the process to wet paints involving heating, without licence.

4. Four burners were installed for heating rosin or bitumen.

5. Turpentine and varnish — highly combustible materials — were stored 8–10 feet away.

6. On 20 April 1962, while turpentine was being poured into heated rosin, froth overflowed.

7. Because of heat, nearby turpentine and varnish caught fire.

8. Seven workers working in a loft were burnt to death.

---

Immediate cause of fire

The Court found that:

• Turpentine was poured too early

• The rosin had not cooled sufficiently

• Turpentine was added too rapidly

• The act was done hurriedly at closing time

This negligence was attributed not to the appellant, but to the worker Hatim Tasduq.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

---

I. Section 304-A IPC

---

Statutory requirement

“Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act…”

The Court emphasized that:

• The section requires causing of death

• Death must be the direct or proximate result

• There must be no intervention of another’s negligence

---

Proximate cause doctrine applied

The Court adopted the classic principle laid down in:

Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap (1902) IV Bom LR 679

“The act must be the proximate and efficient cause…
It must be the cause causans and not merely the cause sine qua non.”

---

Application to facts

• The appellant’s act of allowing burners in the same room was only an indirect circumstance.

• The direct and proximate cause was:

  • premature addition of turpentine,

  • excessive temperature,

  • negligent handling by the worker.

Therefore:

• The appellant’s negligence was not the immediate cause of death.

• Section 304-A was held not attracted.

---

II. Section 285 IPC

---

Statutory ingredients

Section 285 is attracted where a person:

1. Has fire or combustible matter in his possession; and

2. Knowingly or negligently omits to take proper order; and

3. Such omission is insufficient to guard against probable danger to human life.

---

Findings of the Court

The Court found:

• The appellant had no licence for wet paint manufacture.

• Fire was lighted contrary to general licence conditions.

• Naked fire was used in violation of special conditions.

• Combustible materials were stored within 8–10 feet.

• Turpentine has a very low flash point (76°–110°F).

---

Meaning of “probable danger”

The Court clarified:

• “Probable danger” does not require inevitability.

• Continuous absence of accident in the past is irrelevant.

• Naked flame near turpentine is inherently dangerous.

---

Conclusion under Section 285

The appellant:

• knowingly violated licence conditions; or

• at least negligently omitted necessary precautions.

Hence:

• All ingredients of Section 285 stood fully satisfied.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

---

1. Section 304-A IPC

For an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the rash or negligent act of the accused must be the direct and proximate cause of death, and not merely a remote or indirect cause; where death occurs due to the intervening negligence of another person, criminal liability under Section 304-A does not arise.

---

2. Section 285 IPC

A person is guilty under Section 285 IPC if he knowingly or negligently omits to take proper precautions with fire or combustible matter in his possession so as to guard against probable danger to human life, and proof of previous absence of accidents does not negate such probability.

---

FINAL HOLDING

Provision	Result
Section 304-A IPC	Conviction set aside
Section 285 IPC	Conviction affirmed
Sentence	Six months rigorous imprisonment upheld

---

LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE

• Leading authority on proximate cause under Section 304-A IPC

• Authoritative distinction between civil negligence and criminal negligence

• Establishes that employer liability for death requires direct causal link

• Landmark interpretation of “probable danger” under Section 285 IPC

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: The Renegade Prize

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: The Renegade Prize: advocatemmmohan The Renegade Prize Nobel, where is the sovereignty you once claimed? Where lies the crown of prestige, now fractured and u...

advocatemmmohan

The Renegade Prize

Nobel, where is the sovereignty you once claimed?
Where lies the crown of prestige, now fractured and unnamed?
Your chosen heir has turned away, her vision growing dim,
As merit sinks in spectacle and sacred truths grow thin.

Once, your path was iron-bound, with Truth the only guide,
A compass set against the dark, with nothing left to hide.
Now wandering echoes measure worth by fashion’s hollow rule,
As the prize is passed to the rejected — and wisdom plays the fool.

                                                  -M.Murali Mohan

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d) ...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d) ...: advocatemmmohan Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d) Rejection of plaint — Scope — Limitation — Mixed question of law and fact ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d)
Rejection of plaint — Scope — Limitation — Mixed question of law and fact — Suit for specific performance — Agreement of sale dated 15.04.2010 — Suit filed in 2025 — Plea in plaint that cause of action arose on refusal in 2025 — Whether plaint barred ex facie by limitation — Held, when plaint pleads later accrual of cause of action, issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Trial Court justified in rejecting application — However, limitation and cause of action being foundational, Trial Court directed to frame preliminary issue and decide expeditiously after permitting evidence.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d)
Rejection of plaint — Scope — Limitation — Mixed question of law and fact — Suit for specific performance — Agreement of sale dated 15.04.2010 — Suit filed in 2025 — Plea in plaint that cause of action arose on refusal in 2025 — Whether plaint barred ex facie by limitation — Held, when plaint pleads later accrual of cause of action, issue of limitation cannot be decided summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Trial Court justified in rejecting application — However, limitation and cause of action being foundational, Trial Court directed to frame preliminary issue and decide expeditiously after permitting evidence.

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54
Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation — Date fixed for performance or date of refusal — Determination dependent on pleadings and evidence — Cannot be conclusively determined at threshold where plaintiff pleads later refusal.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XIV Rule 2
Preliminary issue — Limitation — Court empowered and required to decide as preliminary issue where it goes to root of jurisdiction.

---

FACTS OF THE CASE (AS PLEADED AND RECORDED)

1. Respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance based on:

   • An alleged oral agreement dated 10.11.2009, and

   • A written agreement to sell dated 15.04.2010,
     allegedly executed by the father/husband of the present applicants.

2. Suit property comprised Khasra Nos. 235/21 and 235/22, situated at Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Plaintiff pleaded payment of:

   • ₹51,000/- as earnest money, and

   • ₹12,00,000/- in cash at the time of execution of the written agreement,
     followed by delivery of possession.

4. The executant died on 06.11.2018.

5. Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 03.05.2025 and instituted the suit on 09.05.2025 / 14.05.2025, i.e., more than 15 years after the alleged agreement.

6. Defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that:

   • No agreement was executed,

   • The agreement is forged,

   • The suit is ex facie barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

7. The Trial Court rejected the application on 08.10.2025, holding that the objections raised involved mixed questions of fact and law.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed the present Civil Revision.

---

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as being barred by limitation on the face of the plaint?

2. Whether the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error in holding that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law?

3. What is the proper procedural course where limitation goes to the root of the matter but is not ex facie apparent?

---

ANALYSIS AND REASONING

1. The Court reiterated the settled scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, namely that:

   • Only the averments in the plaint are to be examined;

   • Defence pleas or disputed facts cannot be considered;

   • Rejection is permissible only where the bar is ex facie apparent.

2. The Court relied extensively upon the recent authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan (2025 INSC 598), wherein it was held that:

   • Limitation ordinarily constitutes a mixed question of fact and law;

   • Where the plaint pleads a particular date of knowledge or refusal, such plea must be assumed to be true at the threshold;

   • Rejection of plaint is impermissible unless the suit is demonstrably barred on the face of the plaint itself.

3. Applying the above principles, the Court noted:

   • Though the agreement is of the year 2010, the plaintiff has pleaded that the cause of action accrued later;

   • Whether such plea is genuine or merely an attempt to overcome limitation requires evidence.

4. The Court held that:

   • The Trial Court was correct in refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC;

   • However, limitation and cause of action go to the root of the matter and cannot be left open indefinitely.

5. Consequently, the Court found it necessary to strike a procedural balance by:

   • Declining interference at the Order VII Rule 11 stage, but

   • Directing the Trial Court to frame a preliminary issue on limitation and cause of action and decide the same expeditiously after permitting evidence.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where the plaint pleads that the cause of action for specific performance accrued at a later point of time, the issue of limitation cannot be summarily adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless the suit is ex facie barred on the plaint averments themselves; however, when limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction, the Trial Court must frame and decide it as a preliminary issue after permitting evidence.

---

FINAL ORDER / DIRECTIONS

1. Civil Revision dismissed insofar as challenge to rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application.

2. Trial Court directed to:

   • Frame an appropriate preliminary issue on limitation and cause of action;

   • Permit parties to lead evidence;

   • Decide the preliminary issue strictly in accordance with law and expeditiously.

3. If the suit is ultimately found barred by limitation, appropriate orders may be passed.