C.R. No.5902 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5902 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.9.2010 Jiwan Ram Sanghi ……Petitioner VERSUS Bhagwan Dass Sanghi and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) C.R. No.5902 of 2010 -2- 1. Plaintiff (petitioner herein) has invoked supervisory juris- diction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as- sailing the order dated 25.8.2010 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the plaintiff/petitioner requesting the Court to decide the issues regarding the maintainability of the counter claim and limi- tation to file counter claim as preliminary issues. 2. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 25.8.2010, it seems that defendants have filed counter claim and against the counter claim, replication was also filed by the plaintiff and thereafter plaintiff himself has moved an application requesting the Court to frame additional issues pertaining to the maintainability of the counter claim and pertaining to the limitation for filing the counter claim. On the application of the plaintiff, issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court having framed the issues fixed the case for evidence of the plaintiff. Instead of producing the evidence, plain- tiff has moved the present application before the learned trial Court requesting learned trial Court to decide the issues of maintainability of the counter claim, locus-standi to file counter claim and question of limitation for filing counter claim as preliminary issues, which was re- jected by the learned trial Court. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Abdul Rahman vs. Prasony Bai and another reported in 2003 AIR Supreme Court 718, as relied upon by the C.R. No.5902 of 2010 -3- plaintiff/petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if facts are admitted then issue of maintainability of the suit can be decided as preliminary issues. 3. In the opinion of this Court, if facts are not admitted and to decide the issues facts have to be seen then Court is not bound to decide any issue as preliminary issue. Court has to find out, as to whether issue can be decided as preliminary issue or not. In the pre- sent case, learned trial Court has rightly observed that plaintiff just to cause delay was moving applications again an again and has failed to produce evidence. In my view, learned trial Court has not commit- ted any illegality while rejecting the application. 4. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 14th September, 2010 JUDGE ashish