CR No.2706 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.2706 of 2009 Date Of Decision: 08.09.2009 **** Dr. N.K. Bhatia . . . . Petitioner VS. Maharawal Khewaji Religious and Charitable Trust, Faridkot . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This revision petition by the petitioner-defendant is directed against the order dated 26.02.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot, whereby his application to treat the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue, has been dismissed after observing that the question as to whether the civil suit is barred by limitation, is a mixed question of law and facts. The respondent-Charitable Trust has filed a suit for rendition of accounts against the petitioner-defendant in respect of an amount of Rs.9,32,730.34 which was allegedly advanced by the Trust during the period when he was working as Director in one of the hospitals, of the Trust. The petitioner’s contention is that the civil suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent-Trust is hopelessly barred by limitation and the objection to that effect deserves to be treated as a ‘preliminary issue’. The trial Court, while declining the CR No.2706 of 2009 - 2 - plea of the petitioner, has observed that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. I have heard counsel for the parties at some length and taken notice of two material dates, namely, the date of termination of services of the petitioner i.e. 16.03.2000 and the date of filing of the civil suit dated 13.03.2003. In my considered opinion, no serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner-defendant on account of the impugned order passed by the trial Court, inasmuch as vide a separate order of the even date the Civil Court has framed a specific issue as to “Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD” and, thus, the petitioner shall be at liberty to lead his evidence to prove that the suit is actually barred by limitation. The counsel for the petitioner has raised various contentions, however, the same are not being consciously referred to so that no prejudice is caused to either of the parties. With this observations, the revision petition stands disposed of. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 08.09.2009 shonkar