*Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association V. Sri Bala & Co. (2025 SC)* 1. Parties entered into an Agreement to Sell (ATS) in 1991. 2. ⁠Plaintiff filed a suit for Specific Performance of Contract in 1993 u/A. 54 of the Limitation Act i.e. within 3 years (from the date of knowledge of refusal OR from the date fixed for performance). 3. ⁠The plaint was rejected u/O.7 R.11 CPC for non payment of court fee on 12.01.1998. 4. ⁠The plaintiff filed a subsequent suit on same cause of action (specific performance of the same ATS) in 2007 citing O.7 R.13 CPC- rejection of plaint does not bar a subsequent suit on same cause of action. 5. ⁠The defendant raised the plea of Limitation u/O.7 R.11 (d) CPC in the subsequent suit. 6. ⁠Hon’ble SC held that the subsequent suit is barred by limitation and ordinarily, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact but if the plaint itself discloses the bar of limitation, it can be rejected. 7. ⁠SC further held that the subsequent suit on same cause of action will be governed by A.113 of the Limitation and not by A.54. And hence, the subsequent suit should have been filed on/before 12.01.2001 i.e. within 3 years from the date of rejection of the first suit. [*Note: I strongly disagree.* I believe that the Hon’ble SC has mis-interpreted the provisions- O.7 R.13 CPC, S.9 and S.14 of the Limitation Act. According to me, the subsequent suit is still governed by A.54 of the Limitation Act. However, the plaintiff can take benefit of extension of time period u/s. 14 of the Limitation Act.]