PUSHPA DEVI Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS appeal takes exception to the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 25.11.2011 in Civil Suit No.30 of 2010. According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge has committed manifest error in rejecting the application, preferred by the appellant, praying for striking off the preliminary issue No.1 framed by the Court. The said issue No.1 framed by the Court, reads thus:-

(3.) THE appellant is under mistaken belief that the abovesaid issue is a preliminary issue within the meaning of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). By its very nature, the issue as framed, in our opinion, is ascribable to the question to be decided by the trial Judge in Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? terms of Section 10 of the CPC. Further, it is not as if upon answering that issue the claim of the parties will be finally decided one way or the other. Instead, by virtue of Section 10 of C.P.C., the Court is obliged to answer that issue at the threshold, to obviate multiplicity of proceedings. All questions in that behalf will have to be answered by the trial Judge in the first instance. Thus understood, no interference is warranted in this appeal.