Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, as amended in 1976, does not impose an obligation on the court to decide issues relating to jurisdiction or legal bar to the suit as preliminary issues. The court has discretion to try such issues first, but it is not bound to do so.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks, to challenge an order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes on 17th December, 1981, in R.A. Revision Application No. 232 of 1981. The facts leading to the present petition must be mentioned before appreciating a somewhat neat point of law which has been canvassed before me by Mr. S.T. Tijoriwalla, the learned Advocate appearing in support of this petition.

2. The petitioner is a public limited Company and is a licensee in a flat situated in Apsara Apartments at Pall Hill in Bandra, a suburb of Bombay. The first respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent", is the owner of the flat or at any rate he is the person who has leased the flat to the petitioner. The respondent filed a suit being R.A.E. Suit No. 574/2408 of 1980, for possession of the flat, hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises", on the ground that he requires the same reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. The written statement was originally filed by the petitioner. Subsequently the written statement was amended and on the amended written statement the trial Court framed 3 additional issues which were numbered as issues Nos. 4-A, 5-A and 5-B.

3. Thereafter an application was made on behalf of the petitioner to the trial Judge to treat the additional issues framed as preliminary issues and try and decide the same first before proceeding to the trial of the entire suit. The learned trial Judge by his judgment and order dated 18th September 1981, rejected this application. While so doing he noticed that there was no obligation on the Court to try any issue as a preliminary issue. He also stated that in the present case all other issues have already been framed and the trial had already begun and, therefore, it would not be just and proper to postpone that trial for the purpose of deciding certain issues as preliminary issues.

4. This order of the learned trial Judge was challenged by the petitioner in a revision application, being R.A. Revision Application No. 232 of 1981, which was heard and dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court referred to above in this judgment. The Appellate Bench concurred with the view expressed by the learned trial Judge that there was no obligation on the Court to decide any issue as a preliminary issue and to postpone the settlement or decision on other issues. The Appellate Bench was also of the opinion that the additional issues which the Court below was invited to decide as preliminary issues were issues involving mixed questions of law and fact and, therefore, it was undesirable that they should be heard and disposed of first.

5. The Appellate Bench also held that revision application preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable under, section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act".

6. It is this order of the Appellate Bench that is the subject matter of the challenge in this petition. Mr. Tijoriwalla, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, has taken up several points. Dr. Naik, appearing on behalf of the respondent, has contended that in view of the judgment of this Court in (Sukhdev Prasad Raghuvir v. Rambhurajat Kshampati)1, 1982(1) Bom.C.R. 832; A.I.R. 1983 Bombay 25, the view of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes that a revision application does not lie against an order refusing to try certain issues as preliminary issues is eminently correct and no interference is called for by this Court with the order passed by the Appellate Bench. Dr. Naik's contention is correct but on the suggestion of Mr. Tijoriwalla I will treat this application against the order of the trial Court and proceed to hear and decide the point of law involved in this petition...

7. The question that is to be decided is whether under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document