SANKARADEVA NETRALAYA Vs. ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS ASIA PACIFIC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 308/2004 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati for a declaration that the defendants are liable to install and commission a defect free and proper machine at the premises of the petitioner Eye Hospital and the defendants are liable to pay damages for failure to do so.

(3.) SUMMONS in the above suit was served on the respondent and thereafter respondent No. 1 M/s. Roche Diagnostics Asia Pacific Pvt. Ltd. filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, for rejection of the plaint so far it relates to defendant No. 3 and respondent No. 1 before us. The defendant No. 3 also filed and application on 7. 10. 2004 before the trial Court praying for appropriate order keeping in abeyance the filing of written statement by the defendant No. 3 till disposal of the application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. The matter was heard by the trial Court and thereafter vide impugned order dated 19. 10. 2004, the trial Court relying on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 557, allowed the application filed by the defendant No. 3 and the matter of filing written statement was kept in abeyance till disposal of the petition under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. The trial Court further provided that for the purpose of filing written statement if any, the time will run on and from the date of service of summons upon the defendant excluding the time required for disposal of the said petition under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC from the date of filing of the said petition. Hence the present application by the plaintiff petitioner.