'^'§c 3D^T ^il ft'lN? WT SII^fT St>*ll<!t> ^ST -41'41d'4, »Ti1y'|i»,fsK'liyy <mf(T ti)»ii<t> ••(R: 200 sn^r TR^ ('^3^*1) c«inRtrfcff 4ii^<i IV.P. SCi ti ro. 2 VERSUSI Mr, Manoj Paranjpe, coun Mr, MK Bhaduri, counsel Mr. Rajendra Agrawal, P,L By this petition under Ar' the 'petitioner has impugned tl- learned II! Civil Judge, Class-II, 67A/06 whereby application of of C.P.C, fbr deciding the issuei has been reiected, Learnsd counsel for the w Court n-hile rejecting the app3k <*>i<<f<'f<i1-< •<i*icif^f'fe^ <[»i<sit ^TSiRmsn^T •J O.2327/2007 T.S. Smgh Dev, S/o. Shri M.S. 3'ngh Dev, Aged about o0 years, R/o. Kothighar, Old Bus Stand, Ambikapur, Polioe Station 8s Talisii Aiiibikauur, Distnc-l SurgLija (CG) i Kaushal Kishore Sinha, S/o Late i RaiTinaresh Sinha, Aged about 55 1 years. Occupation Driver, R/'o I narripara, Police Station 8s Tahsil 1 Ambikapur, District Surguja (CO) I 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through : ! Collector, Surguja, District Surguja 1 iCG) \. I ..,,,,,..., Det'endant No, 1 teel for the petitioner. for the respondent No, 1, , tbr the State, _-— :icle 227 of the Constitution of India, e order of Annexure P/6 passed by |Ambikapur, SurgLija in Civil Suit No, Lhe uetitioner under Order 14 Rule 2 No. 12 & 13 as a preliminan." issue ^titioner submits that the learned trial ^tion under Order 14 Ruie 2 of CPC, 51W&? ^N- g^TR^r, -FS/197—3/2008—10,000. ^ 3I1^rqill<-fi<* W ^H^T a**<i<ft ^ ® '3^ "41-41<'f'4, »Ti1-!-l'IS, fqMI'My MIICTI a>ii<i» "W( 200 sn^F 'T^T (icil3'«».tf) ^kilW ttf^o •an^f has virtualh' decided the issue favour 01 the respondents:/ plair the law. ' On the other, hand. lean submits that itis.v.-el! within thi taking into consideration the fa. decide any legal.issue also eitl conclusion of the trial and the by way of filing writ petition. .H bv the learned trial Court -whi'e .14 Rule 2 of CPC, is a mere obse Having heard Searned coi the impugned order, while L learned trial Court whereby app' of the petitioner has been rejecti Court in the impugned order b( instant petition is disposed of Court to decide the issues Mo, accordance "with law at the time The p-etition is accordingh Consequentlv, interim ord 4*1<<l^tit*t MWv^ ^f 'fet^ ^f^R^R ^ sifiin sn^r No,12 apainst the oetitioner and in |tiffs, which is not permissible under ted counsel for the respondent No.l discretion of the learned trial Court, :ts and circumstances of the case, to ler as a preliminan" issue or at 'he |above decision cannot be questioned ^iwever, the obse";ation, if any, made Ideciding the application under Order i-vation and the san-ie can be ignored. inseLfor the parties, having ;3erused Iholding the impugned order of the lication under Order 14 Rule 2 ofCPC ;d, the observations made by the trial :ing unnecessarv are ignored and the ^'ith a direction tart.he learned tria! 12 & 13 alone with other -issues in of conc'usion of trial, disposecl of. :r dated 16.4,2007 stands vacated, Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 5iR{€^r^t4 ^uiiri^, rr -FS/197—3/2008—<0,000. \