( 1 ) THIS revision application is directed against the order of the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Vadodara for raising certain issues pertaining to the bar of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and hearing them as preliminary issues, in Regular Civil Suit No. 510 of 1981 and Special Civil suit No. 237 of 1981.

( 2 ) REGULAR Civil Suit No. 510 of 1981 was filed earlier by Shishirkumar sharadchandra Sen against Smt. Bina Ashwinkumar Bhaumik and her husband ashwinkumar Yudhistir Bhaumik for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession of the ground floor portion of Block no. 2 in Jibendu Building. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff- shishirkumar and defendant No. 2-Ashwindkumar had jointly purchased a plot of land in the year 1958, in the name of defendant No. 1. It was further averred that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 constructed a house consisting of groundfloor and first-floor between the years 1960 and 1963 A. D. It is the plaintiffs case that in an oral partition he was given exclusive possession of Block No. 2, but he was threatened with dispossession on 8th May, 1981. So, a su a suit was filed on 12/05/1981.

( 3 ) IN Special Civil Suit No. 237 of 1981 instituted by Smt. Bina Ashwinkumar and her husband Ashwindkumar against Shishirkumar on 7-10-1981 the two plaintiffs prayed for possession of Block No. 2 and mesne profits on the ground that plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Bina Ashwinkumar was the sole owner of the Building Jibendu, and the defendant Shishirkumar was only temporarily accommodated in Block No. 2 due to his pitiable plight.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the petitioner in this revision application shishirkumar would be described as the plaintiff and the opponents would be described as the defendants, as both the suits were ordered to be consolidated and the recording of the oral evidence was started in January 1986.

( 5 ) AFTER the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 came into force, the defendants submitted an application Exh. 125 on 29-7-1989 for framing the following additional issues : (1) Whether the plaintiffs suit is barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act No. 45 of 1988 ? (ii) What order ?

( 6 ) SIMILARLY in Special Civil Suit No. 237 of 1981 the defendants prayed for framing the following issue : whether the plaintiffs suit for possession can be resisted by the defendants on account of coming into force of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act No. 45 of 1988 ?

( 7 ) THE defendants also prayed for hearing the aforesaid issues as preliminary issues. The learned 4th Civil Judge (S. D.), Vadodara granted the application by framing the aforesaid issues in the two suits and directing the said issues to be heard as preliminary issues. It is this order below Exh. 125 which is being challenged in this revision application.

( 8 ) THE relevant provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code are as under :"2 (1 ). Nothwithstanding that a case may be disposed d of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce the judgment on all issues. (2 ). Where the issues, both of law and 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 settlement of the other issues until that issue has been determined and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. "

( 9 ) AS per sub-rule (2), a issue of law only can be tried as a preliminary issue, if the issue relates to a bar to the suit created by any law or the issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court. This provision further requires that the case is likely in the opinion of the Court, to be disposed of on