- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that in the presence of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 remaining undecided by the trial Court preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.2 in the suit the trial Court by the impugned order dated 04th March, 2014 is compelling the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to file written statement on or by 10th March, 2014 failing which the defence of 'defendant No.1' would be deemed to be struck off in terms of the order dated 07th February, 2014 passed by the trial court.
(2.) THE application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC was filed on 07th February, 2014 (page 3 of the paper book). The course of action adopted by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula is far from happy. The defendant No.2 ,who has preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, at the first available opportunity made a prayer that the plaint should be rejected for the reasons mentioned in the application, cannot be compelled to file a written statement and that too under threat of striking off his defence without knowing the fate of his application.
(3.) I asked learned counsel, what if the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC is allowed by the trial Court at the end of the trial then of what use would it be he has no answer. This provision is meant filtering cases suffering from defects as are envisioned therein. In the piquant situation created by the trial Judge in compelling filing of written statement on pain of striking off defence and deferring decision on the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, I see no good and sufficient reason to issue notice of motion in this case to hear the defendants unecesssarily which would inevitably compel me to stay further proceedings for no rhyme or reason. To stay further proceedings launched by the plaintiffs themselves would serve no useful purpose and is found a highly avoidable journey.;