JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. - Heard Sri B.Baug, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the O.P. 2. The dispute involves non-consideration of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. and deferment of said application on the premises of consideration of such application after determination of the preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 1 is made. 3. Sri B. Baug, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the parameters of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. is to take a decision only looking to the plaint averments and the application made under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., there was no scope for the trial court to defer the hearing of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. till the determination of the preliminary issue. It is under the circumstance, Sri Baug, learned counsel, submitted that the impugned order should be interfered with and set aside by giving suitable direction to the trial court. 4. Sri S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the O.P. on the other hand made a statement that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. was almost heard and the matter was kept reserved for order but while passing the order, the trial court for its observation on the hearing of the parties was constrained to pass the impugned order. Taking this Court to the impugned order, Sri Dash submitted that even though the impugned order is not heavily couched disclosing the reason for deferment but form the observations, it appears, there is some reason in passing such order. Under the circumstance, Sri Dash requested this Court not to interfere with the impugned order and dismissing the C.M.P. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration that the dispute involved herein as to whether consideration of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. can be deferred till determination of preliminary issue, this Court looking to the provision contained in Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. finds, the trial court taking up such matter has limited scope to the extent of considering such issue only taking into account the plaint averment and the averments available in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., filing of written statement as well as settlement of the issues is immaterial at this stage. 6. 6. For the observations made herein above, this Court finds, the impugned order is not sustainable and thus while remitting the matter back to the trial court for disposal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., this Court directs the trial court to confine the area of consideration only to the plaint averment and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. are concerned. This Court also directs the trial court to take a decision on such application within a period of one month but however giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Both the parties are consequently directed to appear in the trial court on 22.11.2017. 7. The C.M.P. succeeds but to the extent indicated herein above. Final Result : Allowed