CR No.1070 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1070 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.7.2010 Gurjit Kaur ..Petitioner. Vs. State Bank of India and others ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Nitin Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 14.12.2009 and 23.1.2010. Counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the revision petition insofar as order dated 23.1.2010 is concerned and prays that he may be permitted to file a separate revision petition challenging the said order. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, prayer is accepted and the present revision petition is filed against the order dated 23.1.2010 is dismissed as withdrawn and permission is granted to file a separate revision petition. Insofar as impugned order dated 14.12.2009 is concerned, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the defendant Bank for returning the plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in terms of Section 34 of The Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & CR No.1070 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the SARFAESI Act'). Learned Court below has observed that since issue No.5 goes to the root of the case, therefore, the same is to be treated as preliminary issue for the purpose of decision of the suit because if the Court does not have jurisdiction then it will be a futile exercise to deal with other issues on merits. Counsel for the petitioners has argued with vehemence that there is a patent error in the impugned order of the Court below. In my view, there is no error in the impugned order in treating issue No.5 as preliminary issue as it goes to the root of the case because if the Court is found lacking jurisdiction then it would save the precious time of the Court. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 12.7.2010 Judge Meenu