( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted.

( 2 ) A suit was filed in 1983 for the recovery of the suit premises. The said suit was decreed in the plaintiffs favour in 1985 in an execution proceeding in which objections were filed by the respondent. One of the objections was whether the decree which had been passed on 7-9-1985 was a nullity. Issue in this regard and other issues were framed on 13-1-1988. We are informed that for a period of nearly ten years no evidence was recorded. On 26-3-1998, an application was filed by the respondent to the effect that Issue 2 relating tc the contention that the decree was a nullity and non-executable should be tried as a preliminary issue. The Small Cause Court rejected this application and this was affirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court. The high Court, however, in a writ petition, which was filed, has reversed this decision and has directed Issue 2 to be tried as a preliminary issue.

( 3 ) WE find that the order of the High Court is not correct. First of all, it appears to us that the exercise of moving this application for treating Issue 2 as a preliminary issue is clearly mala fide and has been done so with a view to prolong the litiga