S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15982/2009 Kailash Chand Vs.Shri Satyanarain Dated : 25.10.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr.Vishwajeet Mantri, for the petitioner. *** By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set aside the order dated 5.12.2009 whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint on the ground that no cause of action arose and the plaint was barred by limitation. The learned trial Court is found to have dismissed the said application on the ground that after completion of the plaintiff's evidence, the case was listed for recording the evidence of the petitioner-defendant and the petitioner- defendant was already in the know of all the facts raised in the said application, at the time of filing written statement. The learned trial Court also observed that albeit the petitioner-defendant stated that the plaint did not suggest -2- any cause of action and the same was barred by limitation, but he utterly failed to evince as to how did the cause of action not arise nor he could convince the Court as to how it was barred by limitation. The application was found to be belated and the trial Court found that this application was merely filed to procrastinate the trial of the suit. The impugned order is found to be perfectly just and proper and suffers from no infirmity. 3. In addition to above, it is found that the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC and contrary to it implored the Court to decide the issue No.4 relating to the suit being barred by law and finally prayed to dismiss the suit. It is noticed that the prayer was entirely contrary to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 4. In view of above position, it can safely be inferred that the petitioner, by hook or by crook, intended to procrastinate the trial of the suit, which needs to be deplored. 5. The writ petition is totally devoid of any substance and the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. -3- 6. In view of the above, the writ petition being bereft of any merit stands dismissed accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg item No.34