IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2652 of 2008 Date of decision:24.02.2009 Bimla Devi ...Petitioner versus Jarnail Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. 2. Civil Revision No.2778 of 2008 Bajinder Singh ...Petitioner versus Smt. Bimla Devi and others ...Respondents. Present: Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revisions are against the interim orders passed in the same suit pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jagadhri. Civil Revision No.2652 of 2008 - 2 - 2. The Civil Revision No.2652 of 2008 is against the order of rejection of a plea for taking up the issue of limitation and maintainability of the suit as the preliminary issue of consideration. 3. Civil Revision No.2778 of 2008 is rejection against the order dismissing an application for amendment of the plaint brought at the instance of the legal representatives of the plaintiff who had been subsequently impleaded as such. 4. After notices have been ordered to the respective parties, it appears that the trial went on and the evidence of parties of either side have been concluded and posted for arguments today namely 24th February, 2009. Having regard to the present status of the suit, it in congruous to suggest that rejection of the plaint could be undertaken now. The same way, plea for amendment of pleadings to bring explanation to what was purported to have been stated, already loses significance after evidence has already been tendered and the side had also been closed. Both the civil revisions address points which must be taken at the threshold and cannot be considered after the conclusion of evidence and when the matter is posted for arguments before the trial Court. 5. Both the civil revisions are dismissed but without joining issues on the merits of the contentions of both the parties. The case will now be heard by the trial Court on the evidence already available and needless to say that the parties will be at liberty to urge all the contentions which are permissible under law and which have bearing to the maintainability of the suit, the limitation and whether the Civil Revision No.2652 of 2008 -3 - additional facts which were sought to be introduced were merely matters of evidence which could be sustained even without recording than in the pleadings. 6. The Civil Revisions are disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24.02.2009 sanjeev