ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 21.05.2017. Even though prima facie the petitioner has a case for interference with the order dated 21.05.2017, yet as in the course of the arguments it has transpired that the underlying suit was filed in the year 2005 and the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was filed only in the year 2017 after delay of 12 years. I am not inclined to interfere. Indeed the statute does not prescribe a time line for invoking Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, yet delay in approaching the Court is a relevant factor for the exercise of the Court's discretion to short circuit a frivolous suit as against a regular trial thereon. Besides the question of the Civil Court's jurisdiction on which the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was based is also an issue framed for determination by the civil court.
(2.) The trial court i.e. Civil Judge (JD) Bharatpur is however directed to dispose of Civil Suit no.101/2005 pending before it within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. No adjournments be granted to either of the parties except on most urgent and unavoidable ground and when so granted be on a written application for the purpose by a reasoned order.
(3.) The Trial Court should on the issue of adjournments also seek guidance in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. and Others [(2011) 9 SCC 678]. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition Disposed of. ;