Civil Revision No. 7595 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7595 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 08.12.2011 Baldev Krishan .... Petitioner Versus U.C.O. Bank and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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. Baldev Krishan, petitioner in person. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.29254-CII of 2011 The application for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-5 and impugned order dated 27.09.2011 is allowed. C.R. No.7595 of 2011 Baldev Krishan, defendant no.1 has brought this revision petition against the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Abohar vide which his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has not been disposed of and was kept pending to be decided alongwith the suit at the final stage. Civil Revision No. 7595 of 2011 --2-- UCO Bank, respondent no.1 had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.76,442/- against Baldev Krishan as the principal debtor and others as his guarantors. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint in which it is claimed that the suit has been filed on the basis of false and forged documents. It is further claimed that this plea has been taken by the petitioner in his written statement. He has also averred that Rakesh Midha, PW-1 had admitted in his cross-examination that proper procedure for passing loan was not adopted by their Field Officer and bank official. Hence, it is claimed that the present suit for recovery of loan on the basis of forged and fabricated documents cannot proceed and he has prayed for rejection of the plaint. The application was opposed by the plaintiff and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court has observed that since the parties to the suit have already led their evidence, the objection raised by defendant no.1 is kept open to be decided alongwith the suit at the final stage. Accordingly the application was said to stand disposed of. I have heard Baldev Krishan, petitioner in person, who has filed this revision petition and is not represented by an advocate. I have also gone through the record carefully. The petitioner has submitted that by not deciding his application filed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on merits and keeping the same open to be decided alongwith the suit at the final stage, learned trial court has committed the first irregularity which is Civil Revision No. 7595 of 2011 --3-- liable to be corrected in this revision petition. He has submitted that by way of the impugned order, learned trial court kept the application pending to be decided at the final stage but has decided the suit against him thereafter without deciding the same. Learned trial court has failed to decide the application on merits. This may be a cause for setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the learned trial court to decide the application on merits. The trial court is said to have already decided the suit. A copy of the judgment passed by learned trial court is not before this court from which it could be found out if the said point has been dealt with by learned trial court while deciding the suit or not. Be it as it may, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not appear to have any merit. Mere fact that Rakesh Midha, PW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that proper procedure for passing loan had not adopted by the Field Officer and bank official would not be sufficient to conclude that the suit for recovery is based on forged and fabricated documents. The bank may have passed the loan without complying with the instructions in this regard but that would not be sufficient to conclude that the documents executed regarding the loan were forged or fabricate documents. The application was moreover filed after the plaintiff led its entire evidence and the defendants had also availed a good number of opportunities to lead their evidence. The application, thus, seems to have been an attempt to prolong the proceedings of the suit of recovery. Civil Revision No. 7595 of 2011 --4-- For these reasons, I do not find that learned trial court has committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, has no merit and the same is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 08.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh