- (1.)This is a revision petition challenging the order dated 22-1-1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for review of order dated 5-5-1995. By the order dated 5-5-1995 it has been decided that issues with regard to limitation, maintainability, Court-fee and res judicata shall be treated as preliminary issues out of a number of issues framed by the trial Court. The case was fixed for evidence on those preliminary issues.
(2.)The facts necessary for deciding the controversy raised in this revision petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 88 on 22-9-1990 for separate possession by way of partition of the suit property. One of the plea set up by the plaintiff-petitioner before the trial Court is that the suit property was owned and possessed by Shri Narain Singh son of Shri Thaman Singh and the sale deed executed by defendant-respondent No. 1 (since deceased) in favour of defendant-respondent Nos. 13 to 22 is illegal and of no legal consequences insofar as the rights of the plaintiff-petitioner are concerned. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents by filing the written statement. The trial Court framed the issues on 5-5-1995 in presence of both the parties and ordered that issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 16 concerning limitation, maintainability, Court-fee and res judicata be treated as preliminary issues.
(3.)The plaintiff-petitioner filed an application on 31-5-1995 seeking review of the order dated 5-5-1995 by urging that the aforementioned order was patently against the law because only those issues could be treated and decided as preliminary issues where no evidence was required to be led. It was further urged that the trial Court having fixed the case for evidence on the preliminary issues which fact itself would be sufficient to show that under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, 'the Code'), the issues cannot be treated and decided as preliminary issues. The application was contested by the defendant-respondents controverting the stand taken by the plaintiff-petitioner. It was asserted that the suit on the basis of those issues which go to the root of the case could be decided as preliminary issues because that would save time of the Court.