IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2571 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 18.5.2010 Indian Overseas Bank ....Petitioner Versus Kuldeep Kaur ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ramesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Pursuant to the order dated 29.4.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from his client has expressed his inability to make any concession to the case of the respondent. In any event the Court was not expecting any such concession from the petitioner and it was only with an intention to put the litigation to an end that the queries as contained in the order dated 29.4.2010 were put to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard on merits of the case wherein he has impugned the order dated 6.3.2010. In the suit which was filed by the respondent a prayer was made by the petitioner that issue no.2 which pertains to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit be treated as preliminary issue. The said application had been declined by virtue of the impugned C.R.No.2571 of 2010 (O&M) -2- order. The grievance of the petitioner which primarily pertains to service benefits such as gratuity, etc. did not fall within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the civil court. Vide the impugned order the learned trial Court held that the suit was not merely confined to the service benefits highlighted by the petitioner to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court but also contained other relief such as prayer for compassionate appointment as a result of which the proceedings in the suit could not be ousted from the domain of the civil court by treating the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. I am in agreement with the observations made by the learned trial court and do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The question of jurisdiction is always a mixed question of law and fact and in view of the fact that prima facie there have been other reliefs which have been claimed by the respondent, the plea of the petitioner at this stage has rightly been declined by the Courts below. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 18.5.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss