THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3829 OF 2009 Date: 26.11.2009 Between: Saklabatula Nageswara Rao and three others. … Petitioners and Voonna Sarveswara Rao and five others. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3829 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-1st defendant aggrieved by the order in I.A. No.11 of 2009 in O.S. No.18 of 2008 dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. I.A. No.11 of 2009 in O.S. No.18 of 2008 was filed by the respondent-1st defendant, under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. seeking to have the ex-parte order dated 29.07.2008 set aside and to permit him to contest the suit. The Court below noted that in the main suit, except for the 1st defendant, others had already filed the written statement, that the matter was coming up for issues as the first defendant had failed to file the written statement within the stipulated time, that he was set ex parte, that he had filed the said I.A. seeking to have the ex parte order dated 29.07.2008 set aside and to permit him to contest the suit on the ground that he could not file the written statement due to non-disposal of I.A. No.239 of 2008. While noting that the 1st defendant had filed I.A. No.239 of 2008, under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C, for rejection of the plaint, the Court below held that the plaint could be rejected at any time and at any stage of the suit. Having noted the judgment relied on by the 1st defendant in the suit, the Court below held that the main suit was coming up for filing of the written statement and, as he failed to do so, he was set ex parte. In the light of the judgment relied upon by the resondent-1st respondent, the Court below held that he had satisfactorily explained his failure to file the written statement on the ground that the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was pending. The Court below allowed the I.A. and permitted the petitioner to file the written statement and to contest the matter on payment of costs of Rs.200/-. Sri Nooka Jagannadham, learned Counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff, would contend that neither did the Court below dispose of the application filed by the respondent-1st defendant in I.A. No.239 of 2008 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C nor did it fix any time for him to file his written statement, as a result of which the respondent-1st defendant was needlessly dragging on the proceedings. Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned Counsel for the respondent-1st defendant, would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra[1] to contend that, where an application is filed under Order 7 Rule 11, it is only after such application is heard and disposed of would the question of filing a written statement arise for consideration in as much as accepting the application and rejecting the plaint would render filing of the written statement wholly unnecessary. While Sri Nooka Jagannadham, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai1, was prior to the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code whereby a time limit is now prescsribed for filing of the written statement, I consider it wholly unnecessary to examine these contentions as it would suffice for the purpose of disposal of this C.R.P. if the Court below were to be directed to dispose of I.A. No. 239 of 2008, filed by the respondent-1st defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C, within a specified time frame. The Court below shall, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, hear both parties and dispose of I.A. No. 239of 2008 in accordance with law. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. 26-11-2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR [1] AIR 2003 SC 759