1. If you are aggrieved by the trial court's slow progress of the case and feel that you are not likely to get the relief soon, you can file a petition before high court seeking direction for an expeditious trial. 

2. The court may decide on the pending applications on priority basis. 

If the petition seeking rejection of plaint was filed earlier and if the objection by opponent has been filed,  then the court may post it for hearing of both sides to dispose the same accordingly and vice versa for the other application seeking to produce the documents. 

He needs to first decide O7 R11 application first. Ans say of accused is not necessary for 340 crpc as stated by SC

You can only request court that number of adjournments have been granted yet no say has been filed by accused 

2) request court to place application for arguments on next date 

3) also award you costs for adjournments 

4) ideally court should pass orders on order 7 Rule 11 application

1. Order 7 Rule 11 provides for rejection of plaint on grounds specified therein which are grounds of fact.
2. After filing Order 7 Rule 11 an application is seems to filed for certain document and Court directed to compliance of Rule 16. Coz Rule 16 can be ordered only if there is an application filed for discover and inspection.
3. Having filed such application for discovery, application under 7/11 gets nullified. It indicates that the defendant is willing to proceed with the suit.

- As per law, an application under order 7 rule 11 CPC should given preference to decide firstly before going ahead in the case. 

- Hence , if there is an application for the rejection of the plaint , then the court should firstly decide the said application of prompt basis. 

- Further, similar to this application , the application under section 340 CrPc should be dispose off without going to trail proceedings. 

- Hence , you can move an application before the said court for disposing the applications on the priority basis, otherwise you can approach the High Court or Session Judge for speeding the trial of the case. 

1. i dont know how even s.340 applies since that pertains to - in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court

2. the 7/11 application has to be decided first since it goes to the root of the matter. if the other side does not file its reply then press for a 'no say' order. for a decision on 7/11 application the court only has to look into the averments in the plaint and NOT the defence of the defendant. since the P has not yet filed his reply to the 7/11 application, you can request the court to peruse the plaint and adjudicate if any of the clauses under 7/11 are applicable for rejecting the plaint. 

also there is no bar to deciding the 11/16 application despite pendency of the 7/11 application since by the 11/16 application the applicant only seeks that the other side produce documents which he has relied in his pleadings. so a Court would have the jurisdiction to pass an order on the 11/16 even if 7/11 is pending since the jurisdiction of the court to pass such an order is not affected. had it been a case of 7/10 application for return of plaint then the court would have lacked the jurisdiction to pass any order at all in the suit

RERA is a tribunal. 

If the RERA is insisting an affidavit to describe the events sworn on oath, what is the difficulty for you to re-furnish the same information in the format of an affidavit.

Your agitation over this would cause you a substantial loss, hence you better follow the norms instead of objecting it. If the RERA is insisting the affidavit, it would be as per the procedures prescribed in law for RERA proceedings. 

You need an affidavit in support of your application 

Affidavit not necessary only verification clause enough