JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:

"Issue a suitable order setting aside the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Agra in SCC Suit No. 88/2020(Mahesh Chand Agarwal vs. Bhagwan Devi Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and others)"

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that SSC Suit No. 88 of 2020 was filed against the petitioners-defendants, wherein, petitioners were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3. After receiving the notice, petitioners-defendants have preferred application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The SCC Court vide order dated 08.02.2023 has deferred the decision upon the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC with the observation that the same shall be decided on merits after receiving the evidence.

4. He firmly submitted that once the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been filed, same has to be decided on the basis of plaint and no other material should have been considered. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3825 of 2021: Smt. Archana Kanaujia And Anr. Vs. Pooja Educational and Social Development Trust And 6 Ors., decided on 20.09.2021, considering judgments of Apex Court in the matter of Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi: 1986(Supp) SCC 315 and R. K. Roja Vs. Rayudu: (2016) 14 SCC 275. He lastly submitted that impugned order dated 08.02.2023 is bad and contrary to the law laid down by the Courts, therefore the same is liable to be set aside. Since only legal question is involved, therefore, without inviting for counter affidavit, Court proceeded to decided the matter on merits.

5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the record as well as judgment relied upon.

6. The law is very well settled on the point that once application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been filed, the same has to be decided before the commencement of the trial based upon the facts mentioned in the plaint only. This issue has been considered by this Court in the matter of Smt. Archana Kanaujia(Supra). Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

"10. The power conferred by Order VII Rule 11 is primarily to ensure that a suit which discloses no cause of action or is otherwise barred in law is brought to an end at the threshold. This obviates the courts from undertaking a full fledged trial and then ultimately coming to a conclusion either that the plaint discloses no cause of action or that the jurisdiction of the court stands ousted by law. The legislative policy underlying Order VII Rule 11 was pithily explained by the Supreme Court in Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 315 in the following terms:-

"12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next argued that in any event the powers to reject an election petition summarily under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be exercised at the threshold. In substance, the argument is that the court must proceed with the trial, record the evidence, and only after the trial of the election petition is concluded that the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing appropriately with the defective petition which does not disclose cause of action should be exercised. With respect to the learned counsel, it is an argument which it is difficult to comprehend. The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation the court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action. Or the power