JUDGMENT : 1. The subject matter of challenge in this revisional application, at the instance of the defendant in the suit is the order dated February 15, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Durgapur in Money Suit No. 41 of 1998. By the impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”). 2. Shortly stated, the facts giving rise to this revisional application are that the opposite party has filed the Money Suit No. 41 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the said suit”), before the learned Court below claming decrees for Rs.4,36,351/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum and for a further sum of Rs.75,978/- against the petitioner. In the suit, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that as on the date of filing of the said suit, there was no Board of Directors of the opposite party-company and the person who verified the plaint on behalf of the opposite party-company was not competent to file the plaint. By order dated October 25, 2005 the learned Court below the said rejection application and such decision was carried by the petitioner in revision before this Court. By order dated April 05, 2012 a learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the revisional application. The petitioner challenged the said order dated April 05, 2012 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition which was also dismissed on January 07, 2014. However, by the order dated January 07, 2014 the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all the questions including the question of maintainability of the said suit filed before the learned Court below. The petitioner also filed his written statement in the said suit. 3. On June 20, 2014 the petitioner filed a fresh application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code before the learned Court below for rejection of the plaint filed in the suit on the ground that the money claim raised in the said suit as against him arose only after his service was terminated and all his dues were paid by way of full and final settlement. The other ground urged by the petitioner in the said application was the same that he urged in the first application which was rejected by the learned Court below on October 25, 2005 and uphold by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The opposite party contested the said application. In its affidavit-in-opposition to the said application, the opposite party denied all the allegations of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint filed in the suit. 4. After hearing of the arguments advanced by the respective parties to the suit, by order dated February 15, 2017 the learned Court below rejected the said second application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The learned Court below held that in view of the earlier order dated October 25, 2005 rejecting the previous application which was affirmed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the second ground urged by the petitioner cannot be decided once again in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The learned Court below further held that so far as the contention of the petitioner that the alleged claim raised by the plaintiff-opposite party against him arose after the termination of his service was an issue of fact, which is to be decided only at the trial of the suit. As mentioned earlier, it is the said order dated February 15, 2017 passed by the learned Court below, which has been assailed in this revisional application. 5. Assailing of the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, the petitioner appearing in-person, submitted that when by the order dated January 07, 2017 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted him liberty to raise all questions including the question of maintainability of the said suit, the learned Court below fell into an error of law in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. According to the petitioner, although he has filed his written statement in the suit, but in the written statement he has not alleged the fact that the money claim raised against him in the plaint was after termination of service which was not maintainable. 6. However, Mr. Chayan Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party-plaintiff strenuously contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below suffers from no infirmity in law and the present application of the petitioner has no merit whatsoever. 6. However, Mr. Chayan Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party-plaintiff strenuously contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below suffers from no infirmity in law and the present application of the petitioner has no merit whatsoever. According to him, it is a fact that by the order dated January 07, 2014 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all the questions including question of maintainability of the suit, but the said order cannot be construed to confer any right on the petitioner to file a fresh application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code, on the allegation that the person who verified the plaint on behalf of the opposite party plaintiff lacked the authority to verify such plaint. He further urged that it is settled law that for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments made in the plaint are to be treated as true and correct and in the instant case, a reading of the entire plaint filed in the suit does not show that the plaintiff’s suit is not maintainable on the ground alleged by the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the opposite party that once the defendant-petitioner has filed the written statement in the present case, all the issues raised by him can be finally decided by way of expeditious disposal of the said suit. 7. I have considered the materials on record, as well as the arguments advanced by the petitioner himself and the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party defendant. In the present case, undisputedly in his first application, the defendant-petitioner invoked the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code alleging that the plaint filed in the suit should be rejected on the ground that in the absence of any Broad of Directors of the opposite party-plaintiff, the person who verified the plaint in the suit lacked the authority to file the said suit. The said ground was rejected by the learned trial Judge on October 25, 2005 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code and such decision was upheld up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said ground was rejected by the learned trial Judge on October 25, 2005 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code and such decision was upheld up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. So far as the second ground urged by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint, that too after filing of the written statement in the suit, that the opposite party- plaintiff’s alleged money claim was not maintainable as the same related to a period after he was termination form his service and all his dues were paid, I find that the learned Court below was absolutely correct to hold that the said issue can only be decided at the trial of the suit. 8. For all the foregoing reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. 9. At this stage, the petitioner prayed for an opportunity to amend the written statement to incorporate a pleading, raising the issue of maintainability of the suit on the ground that the opposite party-plaintiff has raised the money in the suit against him after termination of this service, which is not maintainable in law. In the interest of justice, such prayer of the petitioner is allowed. Leave is granted to the petitioner to file an application for amendment of his written statement to incorporate a defence in the suit, as mentioned above, within a period of three weeks from date and the learned Court below is requested to dispose of the said application within a period six weeks from the date filing of the said application. 10. Since the opposite party has already filed the affidavit for its examination-in-chief, it shall be entitled to file a supplementary affidavit for examination-in-chief with regard to the averments made by the present petitioner by amending his written statement. Such affidavit will be filed by the opposite party plaintiff with three weeks from the date of service of the amended written statement. 11. With the above directions, the revisional application, C.O. 1541 of 2017, is disposed of with the abode directions. 12. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 13. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.