Civil Revision No.5309 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.5309 of 2011 Date of Decision: 9.9.2011 Raghbir Singh ... Petitioner Versus Arjan Singh and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the order dated 1.8.2011 (Annexure P8), passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, whereby issue No.5A was not treated as a preliminary issue, be set aside. As per learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, the trial Court had framed the following as issue No. 5A:- “5A. Whether the suit is barred under Section 11 CPC on principle of res judicata? OPD” It is submitted by learned counsel that an application was filed by the petitioner that issue No.5A, being purely legal, should be treated as a preliminary issue. He further submits that the petitioner has placed on record the judgment of earlier litigation to contend that the suit is Civil Revision No.5309 of 2011 2 barred by principles of res judicata. The trial Court has held that in the present case, issue No.5A is a mixed question of law and facts, therefore, the same cannot be treated, at the initial stage of the suit, as a preliminary issue. A perusal of issue No.5A reveals that onus to prove the same was upon the petitioner/defendant, therefore, the question as to whether the suit is to be dismissed being barred by principles res judicata or not, in the opinion of the trial Court, is dependent upon appreciation of the facts and law. Therefore, this Court will not disturb the valid discretion exercised by the trial Court, which is in a better position to formulate the opinion being acquainted with the facts of the case. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one witness has been examined. The only grievance and anxiety of the petitioner is that the trial Court be directed to decide the suit, instituted in the year 2003, in a time bound period as already a sufficient delay has been caused therein. This apprehension of learned counsel can be allayed by this Court by directing the trial Court to decide the suit within a specified period. Therefore, without causing any interference in the well reasoned order dated 1.8.2011 (Annexure P8), impugned herein, the present petition is disposed of by directing the trial Court to decide the suit within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order or the next date of hearing, whichever is later. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 9, 2011 “DK”