ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of defendant is filed against the order dated 8.10.2014 passed by the trial Court calling upon the petitioner/defendant to file written-statement with such objections as sought to be raised in his application under Order VII rule 11 CPC and thereafter the application shall be considered. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are in narrow compass. A recovery suit is pending consideration before the trial Court on the premise that the suit property was though assured to be taken on rent and for which infrastructural changes were made to suit to the requirements and specifications of the defendant-petitioner, however, after completion of such infrastructural changes and internal renovations, the premises was since not taken on rent, therefore, the suit for recovery of Rs.14,41,561/- has been filed styling the said amount as an expenditure incurred by the respondent-plaintiff in carrying out such changes in the premises. 3. Defendant-petitioner instead of filing written-statement has filed an application whereunder plea is taken that the plaintiff-respondent did not have any cause of action to file the suit and, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed without disclosing the stand of the Bank on the plaint allegations. 4. Trial Court having perused the averments made in the plaint and in the application filed under Order VII rule 11 CPC opined that defendant/petitioner must file the written-statement and only then the aforesaid application under Order VII rule 11 CPC shall be considered. 5. Taking exception to the order impugned learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contends that the trial Court has refused to exercise the jurisdiction having not decided the application under Order VII rule 11 CPC and, therefore, there is a patent jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Saleem Bhai and others v. State of Maharashtra and others [ (2003)1 SCC 557 ]. 6. Per contra, Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contends that the law as regards scope of jurisdiction of the trial Court while dealing with the application under Order VII rule 11 CPC is well settled. It is contended that mainly the plaint averments are required to be looked into by the trial court while deciding the application under Order VII rule 11 CPC. It is contended that mainly the plaint averments are required to be looked into by the trial court while deciding the application under Order VII rule 11 CPC. As the application was found to be having skeleton facts lacking in material particulars, the trial Court has ordered defendant-petitioner to file written statement for deciding the application under Order VII rule 11 CPC. It is submitted that considering the nature of objection, the question as regards cause of action, which in fact and in effect involves factual adjudication being mixed question of law and fact, cannot be answered unless parties lead evidence. That apart, learned counsel further contends that in fact in para 24 of the plaint specific cause of action has been pleaded to which there is no denial in the application filed under Order VII rule 11 CPC. For ready reference para 24 of the plaint is reproduced below : 24- ß;g fd] okfn;k ds fgr esa okn dkj.k dh mRifÙk loZizFke fnukad 3-8-2011 dks vuqca/k ,oa vkf/kiR; fn;s tkus ls rnksijkar okfn;k }kjk LVªkax :e bR;kfn dk fuekZ.k djkus ls rnksijkar i= fnukafdr 29-8-2011] 20-1-2012] 1-9-2012 ls] okfn;k ds lwpuk&i= fnukafdr 5-1-2013 ls rFkk izfroknhx.k }kjk ek¡x dh xbZ jkf'k vnk djus ls bUdkj djus ls] rFkk uksfVl dk xyr mÙkj fnukafdr 14-2-2013 tkjh djus ls fujarj mRiUu gksdj tkjh gSA okn vof/k ds vUnj izLrqr gSAÞ 7. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel further contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case the trial Court did not commit any error of law and fact and, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. As regards the judgment cited by learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner viz. Saleem Bhai (supra), it is contended that there is no quarrel to the underlying principle under Order VII rule 11 CPC, however, the facts in hand suggest that the issue of cause of action in the instant case cannot be adverted to unless pleadings are on record and parties lead evidence. 9. Heard counsel for the parties. 10. Saleem Bhai (supra), it is contended that there is no quarrel to the underlying principle under Order VII rule 11 CPC, however, the facts in hand suggest that the issue of cause of action in the instant case cannot be adverted to unless pleadings are on record and parties lead evidence. 9. Heard counsel for the parties. 10. Having perused the plaint averments and contents of paragraph 24 in particular, reproduced above, as well as the averments in the application filed under Order VII rule 11 CPC, it is well evident that there is no denial much less specific denial of the facts narrated in para 24 related to cause of action. The application under Order VII rule 11 CPC is evasive in nature and does not contain facts, which may be appreciated for decision of the suit on the premise of lacking in cause of action as provided for under Order VII rule 11(a) CPC. As mere filing of application under Order VII rule 11(a) CPC by itself will not render the suit lacking in cause of action, therefore, in absence of proper facts being placed on record questioning the cause of action, the application under Order VII rule 11(a) CPC may be wanting in better particulars. The trial Court, therefore, has directed the petitioner-defendant to file the written-statement. True it is that the trial court could have dealt with the application and decided one way or the other after perusal of the plaint averments, but as the issue involved related to cause of action, therefore, in order to answer this issue complete facts since are required to be placed on record has, therefore, ordered for filing of written-statement. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no illegality or jurisdictional error is committed by the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, at this stage, contends that the observation in the order that it is undisptued that the suit property was taken on rent by the Bank is incorrect as Bank has never taken the suit property on rent. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, at this stage, contends that the observation in the order that it is undisptued that the suit property was taken on rent by the Bank is incorrect as Bank has never taken the suit property on rent. 12. However, learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff asserts with reference to Annexure P-2 (colly.) at page No.14 issued by the Bank to the respondent-plaintiff, the same is reproduced hereinbelow : ßizfr] Jheku~ 'kk[kk izca/kd egksn; bykgkckn cSad] f'koiqjh ¼e-iz-½ fo"k;& izLrkfor 'kk[kk Hkou ckor~A egksn;] eq> vkosfndk dk Hkou fLFkr U;w CykWd esa vkids }kjk cSad dh 'kk[kk [kksyk tkuk izLrkfor Fkk rFkk vkids }kjk izLrkfor cSad Hkou esa 18 vDVwcj 2011 esa fctyh dk ehVj ,oa xsV yxok;k tkdj dCtk fy;k x;k ijUrq vki mDr Hkou esa vc cSad pkyw djus ds bPNqd ugha gS ,slk vkids }kjk nwjHkk"k ij crk;k x;k gSA d`ik djds viuk fo|qr ehVj ,oa xsV vki fudyokdj ys tk, vkSj izLrkfor 'kk[kk Hkou dk vkf/kiR; eq>s lkSaisA ;k vki yht MhM dCtk fnukad ls lEikfnr djsaA /kU;okn Hkonh; ¼Jherh 'kksHkk of'k"B½ izfrfyfi & Jheku~ vfuy VaMu th ¼Mh,elh½ bykgkckn cSad] Hkksiky dks lwpukFkZÞ ßbykgkckn cSad 'kk[kk f'koiqqjh 'kk[kk@ifjlj fnukad 2-10-2012 Jherh 'kksHkk of'k"B U;w CykWd f'koiqjh ifjlj laacaa/kh egksn;k] vkt fnukad 2-10-2012 dks ifjlj esa fnukad 4-10-2011 dks j[kk LVªkax :e esa yxk xsV ,oa vU; lkeku izkIr dj fy;k gSA vc vki Jherh 'kksHkk of'k"B ds Hkou esa bykgkckn cSad dk dksbZ lkeku ugha gSA gekjk fctyh dk ehVj yxk gS ftls ge fo|qr foHkkx esa dk;Zokgh djds fudyok ysaxsA vc vkt ls vki Jherh 'kksHkk of'k"B vius Hkou dk Lora= :i ls mi;ksx djus dh vf/kdkjh gksaxhA izcaa/kdÞ and submits that the Bank itself admits the fact of having entered into the premises and having used the same and thereafter has left the premises. 13. Without commenting upon the rival submissions in that behalf, as the trial Court is yet to apply its mind on the issue to be determined based upon the pleadings of the parties, in the opinion of this Court, suffice it to say that the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case did not commit any illegality while ordering the petitioner-defendant to file the written statement. As regards the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant viz. As regards the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant viz. Saleem Bhai (supra), there is no dispute to the underlying principle under Order VII rule 11 CPC, however, the facts and circumstances are distinguishable, as in the instant case there is a specific pleading in para 24 of the plaint as regards cause of action and in contrast thereto there is no averment in the application under Order VII rule 11 CPC. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.