Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The primary consideration in applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is the averments contained in the plaint. The court's decision on such applications should be based solely on these averments, and the defendant's pleas in the written statement are irrelevant at this stage (!) (!) .

2. The trial court has the authority to exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 at any point during the proceedings, whether before registering the plaint or before the conclusion of the trial. However, the court must examine the averments in the plaint to determine whether the suit should be dismissed under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 (!) (!) .

3. If the court directs the filing of a written statement without first deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, this constitutes procedural irregularity and a non-exercise of jurisdiction. Such procedural lapses can affect the validity of the trial court's order (!) (!) .

4. The appellate or revisional courts should scrutinize whether the trial court has correctly focused on the averments in the plaint when deciding on an application under Order VII Rule 11. Failure to do so may warrant remanding the case for proper adjudication (!) .

5. The courts are directed to evaluate the application under Order VII Rule 11 based on the facts presented in the plaint, and any order to proceed with filing a written statement without such an evaluation is liable to be set aside (!) (!) .

6. In the case at hand, the appellate court found that the trial court and the high court failed to consider these procedural requirements properly. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the cases were remitted to the trial court for a proper decision on the application under Order VII Rule 11, based solely on the averments in the plaint and after providing an opportunity for parties to be heard (!) .

7. The overarching principle is that the focus of the court in such applications is on the sufficiency and substance of the plaint's allegations, not on the defendant's written statement or defenses at that stage (!) (!) .

These points emphasize the importance of proper procedural focus on the plaint's averments when considering applications under Order VII Rule 11 and highlight the procedural irregularities that can arise if courts bypass this requirement.