IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2123 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 30.1.2008 M/s Singhania Industries ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & anr. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of civil revision No.2123 of 2007 and C.R.No.2124 of 2007 as common question of law and facts is involved therein. The revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Patiala whereby an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the petitioner has been disposed of by framing an additional issue as to whether the suit proceedings are liable to be stayed in the light of the Civil Court decree passed by the Court at Bhagalpur/the pending appeal arising therefrom. From the sum and substance of the impugned order, it appears C.R. No.2123 of 2007 -2- that the learned trial Court was not convinced of the fact that the nature of proceedings in both the suits are directly and substantially the same. At the same time, it has framed an additional issue to resolve the controversy as to whether the suit proceedings pending at Patiala are liable to be stayed or not. Needless to say that if the learned trial Court at Patiala comes to the conclusion that the suit proceedings are liable to be stayed till the matter at Bhagalpur is finally decided, it would be an exercise in futility to ask the parties to lead their evidence. It would have been appropriate for the learned Civil Court to treat the additional issue No.1 as a preliminary issue and decide the same before asking the parties to lead their evidence. However, the said stage has already gone inasmuch as the respondent- plaintiff is stated to have already led its evidence and the case is now fixed for the petitioner's evidence. Consequently, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the defendant-petitioner may lead their evidence, however, additional issue No.1 which pertains to the application under Section 10 CPC, be treated and decided as the first preliminary issue. Disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 3.3.2008. January 30, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE