HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3777 of 2008 ORDER: Despite service of notice, neither is the respondent– plaintiff present nor has any counsel appeared on his behalf. The petitioner herein is the first defendant in the Suit. The respondent–plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S.No. 1913 of 2006 for permanent injunction. The petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No. 2548 of 2007 in O.S.No. 1913 of 2006, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, lacked jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Suit as the agreement between the parties specifically provided that the Court situated at Secunderabad alone would have jurisdiction. The Court below, in its order in I.A.No. 2548 of 2007 in O.S.No. 1913 of 2006 dated 09.07.2008, passed the following order: “WS is not filed. The issues shall be framed for technical points. Hence this petition is dismissed as premature.” Sri A.Chandra Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner- defendant No.1, would place reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra[1] in support of his submission that a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be filed at any stage of the Suit; for the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, the averments in the plaint alone are germane; and, therefore, filing of a written statement is wholly unnecessary for deciding such an application. Learned Counsel would submit that the Court below ought to have adjudicated the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and ought not to have dismissed it on the ground that no written statement was filed. In Saleem Bhai1, the Supreme Court observed:- “ ……A perusal of Order VII Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial Court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC the averments in the plaint are germane; 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 procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court. The order, therefore, suffers from non-exercising of the jurisdiction vested in the Court as well as procedural irregularity. The High Court, however, did not advert to these aspects………” Failure of the Court below to decide the application, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which touches upon its territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the Suit, is patently illegal and the petitioner could not have been relegated to filing of the written statement. The Order under Revision is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District who shall, after hearing both parties, decide the application filed, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, within a period of two months from today and only, thereafter, if need be, proceed to decide the Suit, in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:08.07.2010 usd [1] 2003(1) SCC 557