Judgment :- Arijit Banerjee, J. (1) The three revisional applications arise in connection with the orders passed and or proceedings in the same suit and, accordingly, involve common facts. As such the three revisional applications are taken up for hearing and disposal together. Common facts of the case: (2) The opposite party in CO No. 2739 of 2007 is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 173 of 1985 renumbered as Title Suit No. 111 of 2006 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) 4th Court, Alipore. The suit has been filed for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of, inter alia, default in payment of rent and illegal subletting. (3) The petitioner/defendant filed written statement in the suit claiming to be Thika Tenant. CO 2739 of 2007:- (4) The defendant/petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the basis that the suit is not maintainable against the defendant who is a Thika Tenant in respect of the suit premises. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had wrongfully and illegally instituted the suit under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act when, in fact, the defendant is a thika tenant under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981. The defendant contended that it had been depositing rent with the Thika Controller, Calcutta since January, 1982. (5) The plaintiff/opposite party opposed the said application by filing written objection wherein it contended that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC the Court has to consider only the allegations in the plaint and is not entitled to look into the defence of the defendant. The plaintiff contended that by filing the said application the defendant was only trying to thwart the plaintiff’s application under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. (6) The Ld. Court held that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court has to assume all the averments in the plaint to be true. Nowhere in the plaint, the plaintiff has admitted that the defendant is a thika tenant although the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the defendant has raised a false claim of thika tenancy. The Ld. Nowhere in the plaint, the plaintiff has admitted that the defendant is a thika tenant although the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the defendant has raised a false claim of thika tenancy. The Ld. Judge rejected the defendant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/defendant is before this Court by way of the instant revisional application. (7) I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have considered the rival contentions. It is settled law that while disposing of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the averments in the plaint will have to be taken to be correct. It is the plaint and plaint alone which has to be considered for disposing of such a demurrer application. Only if it appears from the averments made in the plaint that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or that the suit is barred by law, the plaint may be taken off the file. The plaintiff may ultimately fail to prove his case at the trial of the suit and the Court may ultimately hold that the plaintiff has no valid cause of action against the defendant, but that is not a material consideration for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. While deciding such an application, the Court does not adjudicate upon the merits of the plaintiff’s case. The Court only considers whether the plaint, as framed, discloses a cause of action and is not barred by any law. (8) I have considered the plaint filed in the instant case. The plaintiff’s claim is that the defendant being a tenant under the plaintiff which tenancy is governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, has committed default in payment of rent and has also illegally sublet the suit premises. On those grounds the plaintiff has claimed a decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. In my opinion, it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or the suit is barred by any law. Whether or not the defendant is a thika tenant will have to be decided at the trial of the suit. I see no infirmity in the order impugned. The order is well-reasoned and perfectly justified. There is no reason to interfere with the order. Whether or not the defendant is a thika tenant will have to be decided at the trial of the suit. I see no infirmity in the order impugned. The order is well-reasoned and perfectly justified. There is no reason to interfere with the order. Accordingly the revisional application fails and is dismissed. CO 2724 of 2007:- (9) In the factual matrix mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner/defendant filed an application praying that the issue as to the question of thika tenancy should be adjudicated as a preliminary issue before the plaintiff’s application under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 is taken up for hearing. (10) The Ld. Judge recorded the submissions of the parties and held that Order 14 Rule 2 (1) of the CPC requires the Court subject to the provisions of the sub-Rule (2) to pronounce judgment on all issues notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue. Where issues both of law and of fact arise and the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force and for that purpose may postpone the settlement of the other issues. The Ld. Judge held that whether or not the defendant is a thika tenant is a mixed question of law and fact and the same cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The Ld. Judge by order no. 203 dated 4th May, 2007 rejected the defendant’s application. Being aggrieved, the defendant has filed the present revisional application. (11) I find nothing wrong with the approach or the decision of the Ld. Trial Judge. Whether or not the defendant is a thika tenant is definitely a mixed question of fact and law. Order 14 Rule 2 does not contemplate that such a question should be decided as a preliminary issue. The issue has to be decided upon taking proper evidence. Trial Judge. Whether or not the defendant is a thika tenant is definitely a mixed question of fact and law. Order 14 Rule 2 does not contemplate that such a question should be decided as a preliminary issue. The issue has to be decided upon taking proper evidence. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh B Desai v. Bipin Vedilal Mehta reported in 2006 5 SCC 638 that the Code of Civil Procedure confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue and where the decision on issue of law depends upon decision of fact, it cannot tried as a preliminary issue. (12) In view of the aforesaid, in my opinion, there is no error in the judgment and order of the Ld. Trial Judge. The order impugned has been passed by the Ld. Trial Judge by judicious exercise of discretion. I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the application fails and is dismissed. CO 3476 of 2011: (13) This revisional application is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff praying for early disposal of TS No. 111 of 2006 pending before the Court of Ld. 4th Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alipore along with all interlocutory applications therein. (14) The petitioner has alleged that since 2006 the suit has been taken up for hearing time and again but has been adjourned mostly owing to time prayed for on behalf of the opposite party/defendant, cease work resolutions adopted by the local bar association, pre-occupation of the Ld. Court or the post of the Ld. Judge lying vacant. The petitioner submits that right to speedy trial and or speedy justice is an integral part of the petitioner’s constitutional rights which are being infringed by repeated adjournments of hearing of the suit. It is contended that since 2006 on as many as nine occasions the hearing of the suit stood adjourned on the prayer of the defendant, on one occasion at the petitioner’s instance, on three occasions due to cease work resolutions adopted by the local bar association and on four occasions due to the post of the Ld. Judge lying vacant. It is submitted that the suit is now pending for thirty years which amounts to denial of justice to the petitioner. Judge lying vacant. It is submitted that the suit is now pending for thirty years which amounts to denial of justice to the petitioner. It is prayed that an order be passed for early disposal of the suit. (15) The Ld. Counsel for the opposite party/defendant denies that any unnecessary adjournment has been taken by the defendant. He submits that the defendant cannot be blamed for adjournment of hearing due to cease work by lawyers or by reason of the post of the Ld. Judge lying vacant. He strongly denies that the defendant has indulged in dilatory tactics to prolong the hearing of the suit as alleged by the plaintiff or at all. (16) I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is indeed a matter of some concern that the suit is pending for long thirty years. I have to accept that the petitioner’s grievance is legitimate and has substance. I do not wish to go into the allegations made by the petitioner in this revisional application. However, it cannot be denied that for the ends of justice the suit should be disposed of at an early date. (17) Accordingly, I direct the Ld. Trial Judge to dispose of the suit and all interlocutory proceedings pending therein as expeditiously as possible and positively within a period of six months from the date of the communication of this order. The Ld. Trial Judge shall not grant unnecessary adjournments to either party and shall hold day to day hearings if the same is necessary for complying with this order. (18) This revisional application is accordingly disposed of.