A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition arises out of proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act, called the Act. Claim petition was registered as M. A. C. No. 256 of 1997; copy of the claim petition has been filed as Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition. ( 2 ) MOTOR Claims Tribunal, Bijnore/viith Additional District Judge, Bijnore, has passed an order dated 13/12/1999 (Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition) and thereby rejecting petitioners Application (38 Ga) to decide the question whether the machine in question (Wheel-loader) is covered by the definition of motor Vehicle under the Act. According to the Petitioner, wheel-loader, not being Motor Vehicle under the aforesaid Act, the Claim petition was not maintainable. Petitioner claims that this issue be decided as a preliminary issue before requiring him to tender evidence. ( 3 ) APPLICATION-PAPER No. 38 GA (has been filed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) was filed by petitioner/opposite party praying that in view of their defence in the written statement (to the effect that Wheel-loader involved in accident is not covered by the definition of motor Vehicle contained in Motor Vehicles Act) an issue be framed and decided as preliminary issue. On behalf of the claimant objections dated 17/03/1998 were filed against aforementioned application (paper No. 38 Ga) and copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 6 to the petition. ( 4 ) AGAIN petitioner-opposite party filed application dated 2-7-1999 (149 Ga) praying that their application for deciding preliminary issue vide application (38 Ga) be decided first. The claimant filed objections dated 6-7-1999 (paper no. 53 Ga) (Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition ). ( 5 ) THE Motor Claims Tribunal/respondent No. 1 rejected Application (38 Ga) on the ground that they are pressing their application for deciding preliminary issue after claimants had already led their evidence. In the opinion of the Tribunal it was an attempt to delay the proceedings. This question (whether the Wheel-loader is within the definition of Motor Vehicle) can be decided along with other issues after parties had led evidence inasmuch as in the opinion of the Claims Tribunal, the said issue raised mixed questions of fact and law both. In the opinion of the Tribunal it was an attempt to delay the proceedings. This question (whether the Wheel-loader is within the definition of Motor Vehicle) can be decided along with other issues after parties had led evidence inasmuch as in the opinion of the Claims Tribunal, the said issue raised mixed questions of fact and law both. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal, therefore, found that since proceedings initiated on the basis of the Claim Petition (M. A. C. No. 256 of 1997) under the Act were summary in nature, it will be just and fair that case itself may be decided after parties had led evidence. In other words, the Tribunal was of the view that the issue in question would not be and could not be raised and decided in isolation. ( 7 ) ORDER XIV, Rules 2 and 3, Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that no issue can be decided as a preliminary issue without parties leading evidence unless the said issue be decided on pure question of law. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal sought to be impugned in the present petition. ( 8 ) EVEN otherwise, I find no manifest error apparent on the face of record apart from the fact that petition is not going to be prejudiced in any manner. In case parties are required to lead evidence and all the issues are decided, it will avoid multiplicity of litigation without prejudicing anyone of any score and ensure an early decision keeping in consonance the spirit and purpose of Motor Accident Claim under the Act. ( 9 ) PERUSAL of the impugned order dated 13/12/1999 (Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition) shows that no rights of the parties have been determined as such. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision in the case of Smt. Mohni Kumar v. Punjab State, Vol. XVII (1997. 3) 117 PLR 173. ( 11 ) I have carefully perused the said judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court and find that in this case parties had led evidence and thereafter entire claim petition was decided. The Punjab and Haryana High Court was not dealing with the question as to whether the matter could be decided as a preliminary issue in the facts of the instant case. The Punjab and Haryana High Court was not dealing with the question as to whether the matter could be decided as a preliminary issue in the facts of the instant case. Besides, it, the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court is not binding and cannot be treated as a precedent for this High Court. It may be mentioned that finding recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by said High Court, on the basis of evidence led by the parties in those proceedings, cannot be taken as binding in these proceedings. Parties in the instant case may lead evidence to prove otherwise. ( 12 ) THE Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Bijnore/respondent No. 1 shall decide the said question on the basis of evidence led by the parties in the present proceedings. ( 13 ) IN view of the above, I find no good ground for interfering in the impugned order dated 13-12-1999 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition ). ( 14 ) THE writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly dismissed in limine. ( 15 ) NO order as to costs.