1. This case is a glaring example of the misuse of the judicial process to stall and delay the judicial proceedings. The civil suit out of which this revision petition arises was filed almost 18 years back and evidence is still to be recorded.

2. The present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”) is directed against order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.9A of 2012 whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the Applicants/ Defendants No.1 and 2 under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the CPC for treating issue No.10 as a preliminary issue.

3. At the out set, it would be relevant to set out the parameters of the dispute to really understand the issue involved in this case. The Plaintiffs/ Respondents No.1 and 2 herein filed a civil suit before the Trial Court on 11.09.1998 for seeking declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. The case of the Plaintiffs is that Late Shri Upendra Shandilya along with the Plaintiffs and one Shri R.P. Singh had set up an educational institute under the name and style of Gyan Ganga Educational Academy. This was registered as a company under the Companies Act. The case of the Plaintiffs was that they had invested huge amount of money in the said company. Later on, the name of the institute was changed to Gyan Ganga Educational Institute. According to the Plaintiffs, Defendants No.2 and 4 and Late Upendra Shandilya formed a company and got the same registered with the Registrar of Companies at Gwalior. The Plaintiffs were made to believe that they had 8% shares in the company. One of the Plaintiffs, namely, Smt. Suman Dheer was made a Director and she invested huge sums in the company, but never get any return. According to the Plaintiffs, they had been removed from the company without any proper notice and such decision taken by the company is illegal. Initially, in the said civil suit the Plaintiffs had prayed for certain reliefs, but later on, various amendments were made, and more reliefs claimed.

4. As noted above, the suit was filed on 11.09.1998. The Defendants filed their written statements on 03.02.1999. Thereafter, on 24.03.1999 the Defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint. This application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 12.10.1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the Defendants filed Civil Revision No.449 of 2000 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to the Applicants to take appropriate remedy under the law, on 29.07.2005. Therefore, the original Defendants virtually accepted the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

5. Thereafter, the original Defendants had filed another application under Order I Rule 13 read with Order XV Rule 2 of the CPC in which it was stated that Defendant No.1 is a separate body and Defendants No.2 to 4 and the Plaintiffs have no connection with it and therefore, Defendant No.1 be deleted from the array of parties. The learned Trial Court dismissed said applications vide order dated 01.02.2000 and held that these issues would be decided after framing of the issues. Aggrieved by the said order, the Defendant filed Civil Revision No.448 of 2000 before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court on 18.04.2000.

6. On 06.11.2000, the following preliminary issue was framed "Whether the civil suit is not maintainable in view of Section 10 of the Companies Act". The learned Trial Court vide order dated 01.01.2001 decided the preliminary issue and held that the entire matter did not fall within the purview of the Companies Act and as such the suit was maintainable. Aggrieved by this order, the Defendant filed Civil Revision No.220 of 2001 before this Court. It was dismissed as not maintainable, however the Defendants were permitted to raise the grounds by filing appropriate proceedings. In my view, this obviously me