Civil Revision No. 266 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 266 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 18, 2010 Surinder Kumar and others ...... Appellants Versus Vijay Kumar and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against an order declining a plea to treat the issue of res judicata as a preliminary issue. Learned counsel has argued that an earlier suit between the same parties in respect of the same property was dismissed and that the present suit has been now pending for 9 years without any progress and is an attempt only to browbeat and intimidate the petitioner. Learned counsel is, however, not in a position to deny that evidence would have to be led by the petitioner in support of his plea for res judicata (regardless of the argument that the factum of the earlier litigation has not been denied specifically). If it is accepted that evidence has to be led then it would not Civil Revision No. 266 of 2010(O&M) 2 be in the interest of justice to direct that the issue be treated as a preliminary issue. However, the fact that the suit has been pending now since the year 2000 and evidence has not been led by the plaintiff-respondent is a cause for concern. In the circumstances the learned trial Court is directed to finally dispose of the suit within a period of one year. Needless to say the petitioner would be able to urge his plea of res judicata after the evidence has been led. With these observations this petition is disposed of. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 18 , 2010 sunita