- (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Malerkotla dated February 27, 1978, by which he treated two issues as preliminary issues.
(2.) Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of certain amount on the basis of pronote. The defendant contested the suit inter alia pleading that the plaintiff was money lender and the pronote was without consideration. The trial Court framed, in addition to the issues regarding consideration, the following two issues :- (1) Whether the plaintiff is a money lender, if so, its effect ? (2) If issue No. 1 is proved, what is the effect of non-maintaining and sending the statement of account to the defendant under the Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act, 1930. The Court ordered that the sane issues be treated as preliminary. The plaintiff has come up in revision against the order of the Subordinate Judge First Class.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above issues can be proved only by leading evidence and, therefore, these cannot be treated as preliminary issues. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has argued that the present case is covered by Order 14 rule 2(2)(b) and the decision on these issues, if given against the plaintiff, will dispose of the suit.;