Civil Revision No.290 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.290 of 2009 & Civil Revision No.291 of 2009 Date of Decision:20.04.2009 HDFC Bank ....petitioner Versus M/s Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.M.L.Sarin, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Piyush Kant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Arun Palli, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate & Mr.K.V.S.Kang, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This order of mine shall dispose of two revision petitions i.e.Civil Revision No.290 of 2009 and Civil Revision No.291 of 2009 as identical question of law is arising in both the cases. Challenge in these revision petitions is to the impugned order dated 12.12.2008 passed by Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Ludhiana, whereby applications filed by the defendant-petitioners under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC have been dismissed. At the motion stage, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has decided the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Court without framing the issue and without taking any evidence on record which has prejudiced the claim of the petitioner. Notice of motion was issued to the plaintiff-respondent in this case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent Civil Revision No.290 of 2009 2 has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the applications filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 CPC(Annexure P-3 in Civil Revision No.290 of 2009 and Annexure P-4 in Civil Revision No.291 of 2009), afresh, after framing the issue and taking evidence on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed to the aforesaid contention made by the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. Thus, the impugned orders in both the petitions are set aside. The trial Court is directed to decide the applications under Order 7 Rule 10 & 11 CPC filed by the petitioner(Annxure P-3 in Civil Revision No.290 of 2009 and Annexure P-4 in Civil Revision No.291 of 2009), afresh, after framing the issue in this regard and after allowing opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in accordance with the law. It is needless to say that nothing mentioned in this order shall be taken as an expression on the merits of any of the arguments raised by counsel for the parties and it will be open to both the parties to raise all objections available to them in accordance with the law. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on the date fixed. Revision petitions are disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 20.04.2009 neenu