D. P. HIREMATH, J.

( 1 ) HEARD. Admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether dismissing the suit even on preliminary issue is only an appealable order and not a decree?

( 2 ) HEARD on merits as well by consent of both the counsel on record. The original suit was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs for as many as four reliefs, the first and the third being one for declaration of title of the plaintiffs over the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The plaintiffs also added in their prayer for correction of Hissa Survey Map and other land records and rectification of the entries in the Record of Rights. The fourth one was an omnibus prayer praying for any other relief. The trial court framed the issue of maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Land revenue Act among other issues but disposed of the suit on hearing on issue no. 2 as a preliminary issue. Because the prayer is one for correcting the entries in the Record of Rights the court held that the suit is not maintainable under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964. Consequently the entire suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred appeal before the Civil Judge's court at Bidar and that court observed that the appeal is not maintainable as the appeal lies only against a Decree and not an order and hence dismissed the appeal. The correctness of that order is now challenged.

( 3 ) IT is unfortunate that the learned Civil Judge failed to see that the entiresuit was dismissed after he gave a finding on the preliminary issue as to the bar of suit under the provisions of a particular statute, namely, the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964. Rule 2 was added to Order XIV of the Code of civil Procedure by the Amendment Act of 1976. It reads thus:"2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues: (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on 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 if 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 fprce, 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 on that issue. "it could thus be seen that sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 has now given power to the court to try an issue as a preliminary issue and if in the opinion of the court the suit could be disposed of on an issue of law only it may dispose of the suit on that issue only if the finding rendered affects the very institution of the suit. It is thus clear from the Judgment of the trial court that it came to the conclusion that Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is a bar to the institution of the suit in a civil court and therefore it is not maintainable. Under Section 96, CPC an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorised to hear appeals from the decision of such court. It is now required to be seen if the disposal of the suit on a finding on a preliminary issue of law is a decree appealable under Section 96, CPC or only an appealable order as the learned Civil Judge seems to have found. Section 2 (2), CPC defines "decree" thus:"'decree' means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document