C.R. No. 6490 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6490 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: January 12, 2009 State Bank of Patiala .. Petitioner v. Prem Nath Bansal .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. L. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 26.8.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for treating the issues of res judicata and deficiency in court fee stamps as preliminary issues and adjudicating the same before taking up other issues, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to pension from 1.4.2001 along with interest and other reliefs. In the suit filed on 18.10.2006, after completion of pleadings, issues were framed on 1.5.2007. The petitioner filed an application for treating the issues regarding res judicata and court fee as preliminary issues and prayed for decision thereof before deciding the entire claim in the suit. It was on the plea that earlier the respondent-plaintiff had filed C.W.P. No. 9686 of 2004 in this court, which was dismissed on 14.11.2005. It was claimed that the issues raised in the writ petition as well as in the suit were same and accordingly, the claim made by the respondent-plaintiff was clearly barred by the principles of res judicata. It was also claimed that as the suit was not properly valued and court fee fixed thereon, the issue regarding that was also required to be treated as preliminary issue. The decision on the aforesaid two preliminary issues would have helped the court to decide the case at preliminary stage without going into the matter in detail on merits on other issues. However, the application was rejected by the learned court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the C.R. No. 6490 of 2008 [2] respondent-plaintiff had filed a writ petition before this court claiming the same relief and after dismissal thereof by a Division Bench, the civil suit filed praying for the same relief would certainly be barred by the principles of res judicata. Reliance was placed upon Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153. He further submitted that the issue regarding res judicata, being a legal issue, should have been treated as preliminary issue and decided before going to the other issues framed in the suit. It was further submitted that another legal issue, which was required to be treated as preliminary and decided at the first instance was regarding court fee. As far as the factum of filing of writ petition is concerned, the same was not in dispute. Reliance was placed upon Miss Meera Sharma v. Jagjit Singh, 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 281. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue of res judicata being necessarily a mixed question of fact and law, cannot be treated as preliminary issue as for that the court will have to consider the factum of the claim made in the suit and the writ petition. Unless some evidence is led, the same cannot be decided merely being a legal issue. As far as issue regarding court fee is concerned, it was submitted that there was no issue framed by the court below on the court fee. Accordingly, there was no question of the same being treated as preliminary issue. It was further submitted that even the stage, at which the prayer was sought to be made for treating the aforesaid issues as preliminary issues, was belated. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff had already been recorded and it is only the petitioner-defendant, who had to lead its evidence. At this stage, the object for which certain issues are treated as preliminary and decided before taking up other issues is not achieved, as in this period even the entire suit can be decided instead of bifurcating the same multiplying the litigation. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find this to be a fit case where this court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction for directing the learned court below to treat the issue of res judicata as preliminary issue and decide the same before taking up all other issues, on account of the fact that such a plea was not raised immediately at the time of framing of the issues. It was sought to be raised at the stage when the respondent-plaintiff had completed his entire evidence. In fact, one of the witness was being cross-examined by the respondent and thereafter the petitioner had to lead its evidence. Once the suit has reached at such a stage, no purpose will be served by directing the court to decide merely one issue and not to take up and decide the entire suit, when the evidence of the respondent is complete and the petitioner-defendant is to tender its evidence. C.R. No. 6490 of 2008 [3] For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present revision. The same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge January 12, 2009 mk