lawsearchindia.com 
Whether the High court order is viable wherein allowing the application under order 7 rule 11 (d) thereby rejecting the plaint on ground of limitation?
Whether the rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation is a triable issue or suit can be dismissed at threshold?
Whether the plaint can be rejected only against one defendant or it must be rejected as whole?
Supreme court succinctly undo the order of the high court which allowed the application under order 7 rule11 and restore the suit with respect to the property mentioned in schedule A. Apex court inferred that the High court has prejudicially applied the principle of the application for rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11. High court can not get into merits of the case in a revision petition where court is considering an application for the rejection of plaint which was dismissed by the trial court.
It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense….”
High court held that the trial court was not justified having allowed application for amendment under order 6 rule 17 while the relief for the rejection of plaint has been granted under order 7 rule 11 of CPC . Supreme court ratified the judgment of the High court and held that order of the trial court was not in consonance with law.
Remedy under order 7 rule 11 is special and independent remedy and application under the said order should be adjudged at the threshold. The crucial objection under order 7 rule 11 is clause (a) that is no cause of action and clause (d) suit is barred by the law.
contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act.
7 judges constitution bench held that the Article 12 is inclusive but not exhaustive. Court further evaluated a test to ascertain the scope of “other authorities” under Article 12 as follows:
This is most crucial right among all the fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of the constitution. It confers original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme court, thereby declaring the apex court as custodian of the fundamental rights, additionally this court has no more important function then to preserve the fundamental rights.
Whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief under article 32 against the final judgment of the apex court after dismissal of review petition?
whether an order passed by this Court can be corrected under its inherent powers after dismissal of the review petition on the ground that it was passed either without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or due to unfair procedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the process of the court or miscarriage of justice to an aggrieved person.