C.R.No.6521 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6521 of 2009. Decided on: November 11, 2009. Baldev Chand etc. .. Petitioners VERSUS Satnam Singh etc. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) An application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, filed by the defendants-petitioners has been dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiffs have already been concluded and the application at belated stage is not maintainable. Counsel informs that the oral evidence of the plaintiffs-respondents has already been closed and now the case is fixed for production of documentary evidence and the defendants' . . . 1 C.R.No.6521 of 2009 evidence is yet to be allowed. On query put to the counsel, it has been informed that the plea of absence of jurisdiction has been taken up by the defendants-petitioners in the amended written statement. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC or the dismissal of this revision petition will not debar the trial Court to adjudicate upon the issue regarding jurisdiction of the Court as it appears to be a mixed question of law and fact. In this manner, safeguarding the interest of the petitioner to establish his objection regarding jurisdiction, this revision petition is dismissed. The plea of jurisdiction can be raised at opportune time which would be adjudicated upon by the trial Court. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE November 11, 2009. rka . . . 2