( 1 ) THIS C. M. A. is filed against the order of the Subordinate judge, Penukonda rejecting the plaint for presentation to the proper court.

( 2 ) THE appellant was working as a Lower Division Clerk in the court of the District Munsif , Rayadurg. After conducting enquiry into an allegation that he took bribe during the period when he was working as Lower Division Clerk, the appellant was dismissed from srivce. Thereupon the appellant filed O. S. No. 28 of 1981 in the Court of the subordinate Judge, Penukonda for a declaration that the order of dismissed was illegal and for recovery of Rs. 19,000/- towards arrears of salary with interest at 6 percent per annum and for future salary till reinstatement with interest at 6 per cent till the date of payment. Several contentions were raised in the suit that the enquiry was not conducted properly that he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend his case and the principles of natural justice are violated. On these grounds the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the order of dismissal is illegal.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 2, the High Court of a. P. and the State of Andhra Pradesh denying the various allegations made in the plaint. One of the primary contentions taken in defence was that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit inasmuch as the question involved related to the conditions of service of a Civil Servant under the State and as such under the Presidential order it is only the andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal that has jurisdiction to deal with it.

( 4 ) ON the pleadings the Trial Court framed as many as seven issues. Issue No. 3 was whether the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? The other issues were with regard to the merits of the case. Evidence was adduced by both parties. There was a full trial and the Court gave findings on all the issues. On the question of jurisdiction the Trail court agreed with the contentions of the defendants and held that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the only remedy open to the appellant was to file a Revision before the Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal. On all other issues the findings herein favour the plaintiff. However, the suit was dismissed on the finding on issue no. 3 that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit The Court, directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to proper Court. It is against this order the present appeal is filed.

( 5 ) THE preliminary question that is to be decided is as to whether the Trial Court is right in holding that Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in The Chief Justice of andhra Pradesh vs. L. V. A. Dikshitulu, we must hold that the finding is erroneous and unsustainable. The relevant observations of the Supreme court are as follows. "nothing in the order of the President constituting the administrative Tribunal for A. P. confers jurisdiction on the tribunal to entertain, deal with or decide the representation by a member of the Staff of the High Court or of the Subordinate judiciary. "in view of this authoritative pronouncement the order of the Court below must be set aside.

( 6 ) THEN the next question for consideration is what is the order to be passed in this appeal. Mr. Eshwer Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the entire order should be set aside, the Court below having held that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit erred in giving finding on all issues. He says that, that the suit should have been dismissed in limine on that finding alone. The procedure adopted is incorrect. On the other hand, it is contended by Sri J. V. Suryanarayana, that after the amendment of Order XIV, Rule 2, it is mandatory for the Court to give findings on all issues unless the Court feels that the question of jurisdiction, must be tried as a preliminary issue and since no party moved the court in that regard the procedu