The application for rejection of the plaint should be decided before proceeding with the trial, and the written statement should not be filed until the application is disposed of.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 28.06.2017 in IA No.1224 of 2016 in SOP No.490 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. This application in IA No.1224 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner/respondent under Order-IX, Rule-7 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to set aside the ex parte order dated 18.02.2016 and permit the petitioner/respondent to contest SOP No.490 of 2015.

3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Perused the material placed on record.

4. The petitioner herein has filed this IA No.1224 of 2015 to set aside the ex parte order dated 18.02.2016 in SOP No.490 of 2015. Earlier they have filed IA No.1225 of 2016 under Order-VII, Rule 11 r/w Sec.151 of CPC to reject the SOP No.490 of 2015, as the same cannot be adjudicated under Section 23 of A.P. Societies and Registration Act 2001. However, during pendency of that application in IA No.1225 of 2016, the petitioner herein was set ex parte on the ground that they have failed to file their counter in SOP No.490 of 2015, consequently, IA No.1225 of 2016 was also dismissed.

5. The orders dated 07.09.2017 passed in IA No.1224 of 2016 in SOP NO.490 of 2015 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar are extracted as under for better appreciation:

“As could be seen from the order dt: 28.06.17 IA 1224/16 filed O-9, R-7 is allowed subject to filing of counter on or before 18.07.17. But as seen from the record no counter filed by the respondent who filed IA 1224/16 thus treated as no counter in SOP 490/15. Consequently his application under O-7, R-11 as IA 1225/16 is also dismissed.

Since IA 1225/16 is dismissed and no counter filed as per orders in IA 1224/16, thus the matter posted for petitioners evidence. Call on 24.10.17.”

6. Earlier on 28.06.2017, IA No.1224 of 2016 was conditionally allowed with a direction to file counter in the main SOP on or before 18.07.2017, failing which the petition stands dismissed. Thus, since no counter was filed by the petitioner herein in SOP No.490 of 2015 and as the condition was not complied, that application in IA No.1224 of 2016 was dismissed and consequently, IA No.1225 of 2016 was also dismissed and the main SOP was posted for petitioner’s evidence. Now this order is under challenge through this civil revision petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that when an application under Order-VII, Rule-11 of CPC is filed for rejection of the plaint, unless that application is disposed of on merits, the trial Court is not justified in directing the petitioner herein to file counter in the main SOP. In that view of the matter, the order impugned is not sustainable and relied on the principles laid in the following decision:

8. In Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2003) 1 SCC 557; the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that for the purpose of deciding an application under Rule-11 (a) and (d) of Order-VII CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. Therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order-VII, Rule 11 CPC cannot but be a procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction of the trial court. The trial Court’s order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the Court as well as procedural irregularity.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu and others, AIR 2016 SC 3282 also held that once an application is filed under Order-VII, Rule-11 of CPC, the Court has to dispose of the same before proceeding with the trial. There is no point or sense in proceeding with the trial of the case, in case the plaint is only to be rejected at the threshold. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to