JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. K. Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 308/2004 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati for a declaration that the Defendants are liable to install and commission a defect free and proper machine at the premises of the Petitioner Eye Hospital and the Defendants are liable to pay damages for failure to do so. 3. Summons in the above suit was served on the Respondent and thereafter Respondent No. 1 M/s. Roche Diagnostics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, for rejection of the plaint so far it relates to Defendant No. 3 and Respondent No. 1 before us. The Defendant No. 3 also filed and application on 7.10.2004 before the trial Court praying for appropriate order keeping in abeyance the filing of written statement by the Defendant No. 3 till disposal of the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. The matter was heard by the trial Court and thereafter vide impugned order dated 19.10.2004, the trial Court relying on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557 , allowed the application filed by the Defendant No. 3 and the matter of filing written statement was kept in abeyance till disposal of the petition under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court further provided that for the purpose of filing written statement if any, the time will run on and from the date of service of summons upon the Defendant excluding the time required for disposal of the said petition under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure from the date of filing of the said petition. Hence the present application by the Plaintiff Petitioner. 4. There is no dispute at the Bar that the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, is to be disposed of entirely on the basis of the pleadings on the plaint and the disposal of such application has got no nexus with the filing of the written statement. Hence the present application by the Plaintiff Petitioner. 4. There is no dispute at the Bar that the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, is to be disposed of entirely on the basis of the pleadings on the plaint and the disposal of such application has got no nexus with the filing of the written statement. There is no dispute at the Bar that in view of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in 2002, the time limit for filing written statement is 90 days and there is a decision of this Court that the period of 90 days can not be enlarged. The decision of the Apex Court which was relied on by the trial Court in the case of Saleem Bhai (supra) reads as follows: A perusal of Order VII. Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 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 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 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 the Order 7, Code of Civil Procedure, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the Defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. 5. Mr. K. Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 3 has referred to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137 , wherein the Apex Court has considered the nature and scope and the stage for which resort to under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure can be taken. It was held that for the purposes of deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, the averments in the plaint are germane and the pleas taken in the We would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. 6. It was held that for the purposes of deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, the averments in the plaint are germane and the pleas taken in the We would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. 6. In view of the above, we hold that filing of the written statement will not prejudice the Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 3 in any manner as it has got nothing to do with the disposal of the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. 7. Now the question is if a party to the suit files an application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, can he get a new lease of life/extension in the matter of filing written statement till the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure is disposed of? The learned trial Court has done exactly that by stating that time taken by the trial Court in disposing of the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, shall stand excluded from the time limit provided for filing written statement. 8. In view of the settled proposition of law regarding filing of written statement as held by this Court, we find that no such discretion is available to the trial Court and there is no scope for extending time on this count. As the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure and filing of written statement are two separate subject-matters and there is no nexus between them, we find no basis for such automatic extension. If it is granted, we will be opening the flood gates and in each and every case, the Defendant, being unable to file W.S. within the specified period, will chose to gain time to defeat the very purpose for which the amendment has been brought providing a time limit for filing W.S. 9. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order was against the settled proposition of law and the trial Court has failed to appreciate the ratio of law involved in the matter. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. We direct the trial Court to proceed with the hearing of the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, expeditiously and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. We direct the trial Court to proceed with the hearing of the application under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, expeditiously and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 3 is directed to file written statement. 10. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the time limit of 90 days is already over and as the impugned order was passed on 19.10.2004, the Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 3 was under the impression that the time limit stands extended in view of the order passed by the trial Court and the said order has been challenged by filing writ petition on 16.12.04 only. We, therefore, direct that the Respondent M/s. Roche Diagnostics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. may file their W.S. within 15 days from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.