JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the elected Sarpanch of Charda Grama Panchayat under Binka Block in the district of Subarnapur, challenging the order dated 10.1.2013, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sonepur, in G.P. (Election) Case No. 06 of 2012, rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Charda Grama Panchayat in the district of Subarnapur, which was held on 21.2.2012. In the result announced, the present petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of Charda Grama Panchayat by majority of votes. Being aggrieved by the result of the election, the opposite party No. 2 filed G.P. Election Case No. 06 of 2012 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sonepur. On receipt of notice, the present petitioner appeared and filed her objection/show-cause, denying the allegations/averments made in the election petition. 3. Subsequently, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the election petition on the ground that the same does not disclose any cause of action and that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 15(2) and (3) and Order 7 Rule 14 have not been complied, as per Annexure-2. The same having rejected by the impugned order dated 10.1.2013, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that after completion of pleadings of the parties, issues have been framed and one of the issues is with regard to the existence of any cause of action. It also reveals that earlier a petition had been filed by the present petitioner regarding maintainability of the election petition, which had been rejected. Subsequently, after commencement of the trial, petitioner filed another application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., praying for rejection of the election petition on the ground that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action and further the provisions of Order 6 Rule 15(2) and (3) and Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. have not been complied. 5. Subsequently, after commencement of the trial, petitioner filed another application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., praying for rejection of the election petition on the ground that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action and further the provisions of Order 6 Rule 15(2) and (3) and Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. have not been complied. 5. Learned Civil Judge, considering the grounds taken in the said application has come to find that the election petition cannot be rejected on the ground of non-compliance of Order 6 Rule 15(2) and (3) and Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. As regard the plea of the petitioner that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action, learned Civil Judge has come to hold that as the issue regarding cause of action has already been framed, amongst other issues, the same can be considered at the time of hearing of the election petition. Accordingly, the learned Civil Judge has proceeded to reject the said application of the petitioner filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., for rejection of the election petition. 6. Admittedly, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. does envisage rejection of a plaint for non-compliance of Order 6 Rule 15 or Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C., as the defects, if any, in presentation of the plaint is curable. Coming to the plea of the petitioner that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action, an issue having been framed in that respect, the same can be adjudicated during hearing of the election petition. Moreover, as the trial of the election petition has already commenced and opposite party No. 2 has already filed her affidavit in evidence, as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C., the consideration of the petitioner's plea regarding the election petition not disclosing any cause of action at that stage, would amount to piecemeal hearing of the case, which is neither desirable nor warranted. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge, so as to warrant any interference. 8. The writ petition being devoid of merit, the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. Interim order dated 22.1.2013 stands vacated. 10. Misc. case is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Final Result : Dismissed