Civil Revision No.4330 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4330 of 2007 Date of Decision:-July 24,2009 Pehalwan Chand ....Petitioner Versus Kahan Chand & others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest? Present: Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for respondent No.7. ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, whereby the petitioner's plaint has been rejected. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for respondent No.7 has put in appearance. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner's plaint has been ordered to be rejected at the threshold on the ground that previously, the petitioner had filed Civil Suit No.255 of 2000 alongwith an application for ad-interim injunction which was got dismissed as withdrawn after the ad-interim injunction was declined Civil Revision No.4330 of 2007 2 and that no permission was sought or granted by the Court to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, coupled with the fact that the declaration sought by the petitioner-plaintiff against a previous decree is now clearly barred by limitation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that while rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC, it is obligatory upon the civil Court to read the plaint as a whole. Whether the petitioner had knowledge of the civil Court's judgment and decree dated 19.8.2000, which he has impugned in the present suit and if so when did he acquire such knowledge, are pure questions of fact only. In such a situation, the civil Court ought to have asked the defendants to file their written statement and in the light of the preliminary objections raised therein to frame preliminary issues on the 'question of law' and then proceed to pronounce the judgment in accordance with Order 14 Rule 2 (2) (b) CPC, provided that the Court was of the opinion that the suit could be disposed of on that issue of law. The revision petition is, accordingly, allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the civil Court is directed to proceed with the matter accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 25.8.2009. Dasti. (Surya Kant) Judge 24.7.2009 AS