Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises a point of procedure in the trial of suits. Weston Electronics Limited sent from Delhi 60 boxes of T. V. sets to Calcutta. The consignment was accepted by Nitco Roadways Pvt. Ltd. petitioner herein, for carriage for reward. On way the goods were damaged. The consignor recovered the value of. the goods from National Insurance Company Limited with whom they were insured. On subrogation the National Insurance Company Ltd. brought the suit against Nitco Roadways for the recovery of Rs. 85. 00u. 00. The Roadways were sought to be made liable as carriers of goods. The Roadways pleaded that near Varanashi on 13-3-1980 the tyre of the truck burst and as a result there was a serious accident causing injury to the driver and damage to the goods. This accident, it was said, "was beyond the control and not due to any negligence or carelessness on the part of the driver of the truck. "

( 2 ) ON this plea of the Roadways, the following two preliminary issues were raised:

" (2) Whether the plea of defendant that the accident had occurred beyond the control of defendant No. I and thus not liable to pay the damages is entertainable in law ? OPD (3) If issue No. 2 is held in favour of the defendant whether accident took place beyond the control of defendant ?

( 3 ) THE trial judge treated them as preliminary issues. On these issues he returned the finding that the plea of Roadways that the damage occurred on account of accident over which they had no control as the tyre of the truck had burst "is not entertainable in law because such an accident is not due to any act of God. " So he decided the first of the above issues against the Roadways and the other issue he ordered to be deleted. On the remaining issues framed by him regarding verification of plaint, quantum of damages and service of notice under section 10 of the Carriers Act he set down the case for evidence. From this order the Roadways have come in revision.

( 4 ) THE chief argument of counsel for the Roadways is that without taking any evidence the learned judge has decided the issue against the Roadways and that this procedure is not sanctioned by law. In my opinion he is quite right. It is well-settled rule that in appealable cases all issues arising in the suit should ordinarily be tried together and decided. Where all the issues are issues of fact, the court has no power to try only some of them and postpone the trial of others. (See Bhikhabhai v. Vali Isa Patel, AIR 1964 Gujarat 101,102 and Haridas v. Vijayalakshmi, AIR 1956 Bombay 721, 723 ).

( 5 ) RULE 2 of Order XIV, Code of Civil Procedure says :

"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 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 on that issue. "

( 6 ) NOW the defence of act of God raises a question of fact. "whether a particular occurrence amounts to an act of God is a question of fact," (Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 12th ed. p. 444. The term act of God is appropriate where liability is sought to the imposed upon a person hwo, by reason of his calling or otherwise, such as that of a common carrier, has assumed an absolute liability to see that the plaintiff s property is left free from harm. Such absolute liability is subject to an exception in respect of damage caused by an act of God, which would ordinarily be defined as su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document