Civil Revision No.4808 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4808 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.2.2009 Avtar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Harshminder ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. A.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate the respondents S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.12,96,700/- (Rs.8,50,000/- as principal amount and Rs.4,46,700/- as interest thereupon). The plea, in the context, was that the defendant- petitioner had, in discharge of the liability, given a cheque for Rs.10,50,000/- which bounced. However, in spite thereof, the defendant- petitioner did not pay up the amount under reference. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit by denying having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff-respondent. The issuance of the averred cheque was also denied. In the course of the evidence, a plea was taken up that the suit was liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. The issues, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, came to be framed on 11.8.2005 (Annexure P-1). Issue no.6 was based upon relevant plea and is reproduced for facility of reference:- “1. ....... 2. ....... Civil Revision No.4808 of 2008 -2- **** 3. ....... 4. ....... 5. ....... 6. Whether suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 1 Rule 11 C.P.C., if so its effect? OPP” The trial proceeded and is presently fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. It was at that stage that the defendant-petitioner filed an application for disposal of the suit in terms of the provision of Order 7 Rule 11,14 and 17 of the C.P.C. That plea was declined by the learned Trial Court by observing that the matter has already matured for final disposal and issue no.6 would be decided, alongwith other issues framed at the trial. The defendant-petitioner is in revision against the impugned order dated 23.4.2008. It is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order itself that the plea raised by the plaintiff-petitioner in the context is “that vague date has been mentioned as 30.11.2002 to bring the suit within limitation. Besides, that, he has not placed any document for writing whereby such a heavy amount of Rs.10,50,000/- was given to applicant/defendant nor even the cheque, which is alleged to have been issued by the defendant in discharge of his legal liability, has been placed on the file.” It being common ground that the suit is presently fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, it would not be in the interest of justice to direct the learned Trial Court to dispose of the above quoted issue no.6 in the first instance, particularly in the light of the nature of the objection aforementioned. Needless to say, the finding under that issue shall determine the fate of the suit. It was for the defendant-petitioner to have Civil Revision No.4808 of 2008 -3- **** pressed for the disposal of that issue as preliminary at the initial stage of the trial. Both the parties allowed the trial to conclude. Learned counsel for the petitioner has the apprehension that the disposal of the matter under reference on merits would get inordinately delayed. In that context, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states at the bar that rebuttal evidence shall be concluded on 18.3.2009. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. It is ordered that the plaintiff-respondent shall conclude the rebuttal evidence on 18.3.2009 and the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the suit itself within one week thereafter. February 18, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge