The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute relating to the title and interest over the immovable property, and issues relating to jurisdiction and bar of suit can be tried as preliminary issues only if they are pure questions of law.

Upon consideration of an application under Order 14, Rule 2, sub-Rule 2 (a) and (b) CPC preferred by the defendant/respondent in T.S. No. 207/98 seeking the issues relating to cause on action as well as maintainability of the suit, being framed as

Issues No. 1 and 5, to be decided as preliminary issues before taking up other issues, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) by his order dated 11-7-2000 accepted the prayer of the defendant/Respondent and those issues No. 1 and 5 were considered to be heard as preliminary issues before going to decide the other issues. Moreso, the said learned Judge by his another order dated 1-9-2000, while dealing with a separate petition under Order 14, Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the Plaintiffs/Petitioners praying for framing two additional issues i.e. Issue No. 1 (A) and 1 (B) i.e. whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for declaration of their right, title and interest over the property left by late Hem Chandra Choudhury as shown in Schedule B of the Plaint and whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for recovery of khas possession of the land as shown in Schedule C of the plaint, respectively, deferred the prayer so made holding that it would be convenient to consider such prayer for framing the additional issues only after the final decision of the preliminary issues so framed by the said Court by its order dated 11-7-2000 as already noted.

2. Both these orders dated 11-7-2000 and 1-9-2000 are the subject matter of challenge in this Civil Revision.

3. The Petitioners as the plaintiffs have instituted the Title Suit No. 207/98 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2, Guwahati against the defendant/Respondent for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land with a prayer inter alia for recovery of the possession. The Respondent has contested the suit by filing written statement. Initially the Petitioners moved the Revenue Court for perfect partition of the suit land claiming their respective shares thereon. Having failed to get their grievances well redressed, the instant Civil Suit has been preferred by he Petitioners. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties has framed the following 8 issues :

1) Whether there is any cause of action in the plaintiffs suit?

2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3) Whether the suit is correctly valued and the proper Court fee has been paid?

4) Whether law of limitation bars the suit?

5) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form?

6) Whether after the death of Hem Chandra Choudhury the predecessor in interest of the parties in this suit there was any amicable partition between the parties and whether the parties acted upon said partition and revenue authority thereafter made partition on the prayer of the plaintiffs of their respective shares to the suit land?

7) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

8) To what relief if any the parties are entitled?

4. The only question that needs to be answered here is whether the learned Civil Judge has committed any illegality or irregularity in holding that in view of provision under Section 154 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation (for short, the Regulation), the issue of cause of action and maintainability of the suit as mentioned in issues No. 1 and 5 above can be decided as preliminary issues where only material proposition of law is involved.

5. I have heard Mr. B. K. Katakey, learned Sr. counsel for the Petitioners and also heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

6. Challenging the impugned orders, Mr. Katakey the learned Sr. counsel, has contended that both the impugned orders ex facie suffers from gross illegality and jurisdictional error. He has put forward his arguments to dislodge these impugned orders mainly on two grounds - firstly, it is argued that the learned Civil Judge has committed a grave er