( 1 ) THESE conjoint revision petitions are against the orders declining to decide preliminary issue under O. 14, to decide preliminary issue under O. 14, R. 2, C. P. C. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs filled suits challenging the legality and validity of the order dt. 20-6-1978 in R. C. 4407/77 and similar ordered passed under S. 6 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Occupants of Homesteads (Conferment of Ownership) Act of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The defendants 1 and 2, petitioners herein, field applications for deciding the preliminary issue as to jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit in view of the express bar of suit in the civil court contained in the Act. These applications are resisted by the respondents-plaintiffs on the ground that the petitioners have not filed written statements in the suit and orders passed under S. 6 (1) of the Act are actuated by mala fides and vitiated by various illegalities and arbitrariness and violation of fundamental principles of procedure and as this a mixed question of fact and law, the preliminary issue need not be decided and all the issues arising in the trial can be taken up and declined to hear the preliminary issue.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the jurisdiction of the civil court is expressly barred by S. 11 of the Act and the orders passed under the Act by the Authorised Officer are amenable to appeal and revision provided under Ss. 8 and 9 of the Act and adequate remedies are provided under the Act to challenge the validity of the orders. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the subject matter of the suit is outside the purview of the provisions of the Act and that the impugned order is in contravention of fundamental principles of judicial procedure and violative of principles of natural justice and the order is vitiated by mala fides and as such the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain suits notwithstanding the bar envisaged under the Act.

( 3 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to have an insight into the provisions of O. 14, R. 2. C. P. C. and S. 11 of the A. P. Occupants of Homesteads (Conferment of Ownership)Act, Order 14, Rule 2, C. P. C. "court to pronounce judgement on all issues:-- (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of an a preliminary issue, the court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first is that issue relates to - (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose, may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision that issue". Section 11 of the Act reads as under. "bar of jurisdiction of civil court:-- No civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Government are, or the authorised officer is, empowered by or eviction shall be passed and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act".

( 4 ) O. 14, R. 2, C. P. C. , confers power on the court to try a preliminary issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. The court is for the time being in force. The court is empowered to postpone the settlement of other issues until the preliminary of other issues until the preliminary issue is decided. In this case the jurisdiction of the Court to hear this matter is questioned on the ground that there is questioned on the ground that there is an embargo on the civil court to try the suit in resp