In N. Asha Devi v. R. Aravind Kumar & Anr ., the Supreme Court held that where a suit is hopelessly barred by limitation on a plain reading of the plaint, the plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court observed that there can be no hesitation in rejecting a plaint where the bar of limitation is evident from the pleadings themselves. Reaffirming Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr. , the Court reiterated that, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto alone are germane. The Court held that a plaintiff cannot sleep on their rights for over six years after a Joint Venture Agreement was unequivocally cancelled and then attempt to revive a dead claim by citing recent, self-serving actions. The judgment reinforces that a plaint which is ex facie barred by limitation cannot be permitted to proceed to trial where the bar is evident from the pleadings themselves. It also prevents a stale claim from being revived through subsequent or self-serving acts that do not give rise to a fresh cause of action.
