Order VII Rule 11 must be decided before trial proceeds, as maintainability of the plaint cannot be deferred.

An application under Order VII Rule 11 must be decided before the court proceeds with trial, because a challenge to maintainability goes to the plaint itself and cannot be deferred to final hearing or tested on defence material. On the facts, the election petition did not disclose any ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11, so the rejection application was dismissed. The appellant was nevertheless granted limited time to file a written statement in the peculiar circumstances of the matter.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must be decided before the court proceeds with trial; (ii) whether the application for rejection of the election petition was liable to be allowed on the facts and whether the appellant could be permitted to file a written statement.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must be decided before the court proceeds with trial.

Analysis: An application under Order VII Rule 11 can be made at any stage, but once it is filed the court must decide it before proceeding further with the trial. The power to reject a plaint is to be exercised on the plaint as a whole and not on the basis of defence material. Requiring a written statement or postponing the application to final hearing is a procedural irregularity because the plaint may have to be rejected at the threshold.

Conclusion: The application under Order VII Rule 11 had to be decided first, and the court could not proceed with the trial without doing so.

Issue (ii): Whether the application for rejection of the election petition was liable to be allowed on the facts and whether the appellant could be permitted to file a written statement.

Analysis: On examination of the application and the election petition, the pleaded case did not fall within any of the grounds for rejection under Order VII Rule 11. The court therefore rejected the application, but in the peculiar facts of the matter it granted the appellant time to file a written statement.

Conclusion: The application for rejection was dismissed, and the appellant was permitted to file a written statement within two weeks.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside on the procedural point, the rejection application was itself dismissed on merits, and the appellant received only limited further opportunity to file a written statement.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an application under Order VII Rule 11 is filed, the court must dispose of it before continuing the trial, because the objection goes to the maintainability of the plaint and cannot be deferred to the final hearing.

---