JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.

The instant petition is directed against the order dated 28.8.2019, in O.S. No. 865 of 1998, allowing the Objection 405ga-2, filed by the plaintiff-respondent and rejecting the application/objection 406ga-2 and 407ga-2, by the defendant-petitioners.

2. The petitioners, who are defendants in the suit, filed their written statement and on the basis of pleadings of the parties, one of the issues framed in the suit was whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. or not. An application 405ga-2 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent, praying that the proceedings of the suit be concluded expeditiously, without considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., moved by the defendant-petitioners. The application was opposed by the petitioners by filing their objection 407ga-2. The case of the petitioners is that the original plaintiff had no locus to challenge the sale deed in favour of the petitioner-defendant no. 2, as he had no interest in the suit property, nor any cause of action. In any case, the alleged interest of the plaintiff had also ceased upon execution of a sale deed, during pendency of the suit, in favour of Ayush Jain and Gaurav Agarwal.

3. The trial court observed that there is a direction by this Court to decide the suit expeditiously and that the prayer made five years after the execution of the alleged sale deed is highly belated. It, therefore, declined to consider the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. observing that the suit itself shall be decided on merits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. could be filed at any stage. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137. He further submitted that the judgment of Supreme Court in Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, (2007) 10 SCC 59, on which reliance has been placed by the trial court in holding that the application was filed with delay, therefore, does not deserve to be considered, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

5. On the other hand, Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, submitted that the application moved is wholly frivolous. It is submitted that the plaint duly discloses the cause of action and that suit could not be dismissed on the ground that the suit property had been transferred during pendency of the suit.

6. The merit of the application is not subject matter of scrutiny in the instant matter. The only issue which requires consideration is whether the trial court is justified in declining to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., on the ground that it was moved with considerable delay, or for the reason that the suit is an old one and is at the stage of recording of evidence.

7. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable (supra), the Supreme Court held that the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. can be exercised at any stage of the suit. The relevant observations are as follows: -

"(10) In Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 557 it was held with reference to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial Court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit - before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are the germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.

(17) Keeping in view the aforesaid principles the reliefs sought for in the suit as quoted supra have to be considered. The real object of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to keep o