ORDER : In a suit laid in 2014 for damages whose cause of action is founded on an allegation of defamation, the third defendant has come forward with this application for rejection of plaint after seven years, on the eve of the commencement of trial. 2. No written counter is filed, but Mr. P.R.Raman, the counsel for the plaintiff and he is ready with his oral objection. Heard the counsel on either side. 3. The quintessence of the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application is that the applicant is an honest police officer, and that he has merely done his duty, and that the allegations associating him to the cause of action as has been made in the plaint are motivated. 4.1 There are two parts to the contention of the applicant: First its merit and second its timing. In other words, it is not just about the availability of a procedural right or a facility for the defendant to seek rejection of he plaint but also its timing: Whether there is an undisclosed intent to sabotage the scheduled trial of the suit? 4.2 There is no disputing the fact that the procedural right to seek rejection of a plaint can be exercised at anytime during the pendency of the suit as the procedural law has not stipulated a timeline within which it may have to be exercised. However, the Court’s role does not stop by falling back on the timelessness of this procedural right but in probing if its judicial process is attempted to be out manoeuvered by a litigant’s aptitude for abusing judicial process. It is imperative that every litigant and their counsel should sensitize themselves to realise that forensic exercise is always coupled with a duty to use the procedural facility fairly and judiciously in order the judicial system stays robust and relevant to all the users, which includes the procedural right to seek rejection of a plaint. 5.1 In this case issues were framed and the trial was scheduled to commence on 01-12-2021. It appears that this applicant has suddenly woken up to the existence of a procedural right to seek rejection of the plaint, perhaps on a belated dawning of enlightenment, applies for it. Why has he not filed it earlier? 5.2 This now takes this Court to consider the merit of the averments. It appears that this applicant has suddenly woken up to the existence of a procedural right to seek rejection of the plaint, perhaps on a belated dawning of enlightenment, applies for it. Why has he not filed it earlier? 5.2 This now takes this Court to consider the merit of the averments. The counsel for the applicant required this Court to appreciate that the 3rd defendant, who has been departmentally proceeded against viz-a-viz the investigation of that which later led to the cause of action for filing litigation, has been now exonerated. This may, at best, be a defence in the suit, but still is not worthy of seeking rejection of the plaint. 6.1 It is essential to remember that the Courts are not guided by an automated psyche to patronise litigant’s irresponsibility in using or misusing a procedural facility, and to tacitly encourage laying any procedural obstruction on the road to justice. Courts have a duty not just to the litigants but to the countrymen. Hence, the Courts are required to remind themselves constantly that in a performance audit by the countrymen the Court will stand alone to defend themselves without a defence for the delay in disposal of cases and pendency in litigations, unaided by any of the litigants or their counsel. Courts therefore, has a duty to balance the procedural right of the litigant with its own duty to adjudicate the litigation, and to keep down the pendency, lest the Court might be accused of granting judicial patronage for creating delay in justice dispensation. 6.2 In the backdrop of what is now stated, if this Court were to entertain this application at this belated hour, it may well become responsible for the potential delay which is waiting to halt the final disposal of the suit. Given the hierarchy of Courts through which this application may be routed, there is a threatening possibility of this case staying over in the docket of this court for a couple of decades even. See: Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Others [ (2007) 10 SCC 59 ] 7. If this applicant is keen to have him heard on the contents of his averments in the affidavit, he may to file his additional pleadings. See: Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Others [ (2007) 10 SCC 59 ] 7. If this applicant is keen to have him heard on the contents of his averments in the affidavit, he may to file his additional pleadings. Here, the learned counsel for the applicant informed the Court that this was once attempted when an application was filed in D.No.23448 of 2021 but that was rejected by this Court Vide its Order dated 08.09.2021. This Court now, recalls the said order and revives D.No.23448 of 2021, and direct the applicant to represent the said application along with his additional pleadings within week from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. It need not be accompanied by any other application such as the one for condonation of delay in representing it etc. It is necessary that procedure is made simple, and fluid within the elastic limits of its functionality. 8. This application stands dismissed accordingly. The applicant/3rd defendant is required to face the trial.