Only an issue of law affecting the jurisdiction or creating a bar to the suit can be tried preliminarily, and issues involving mixed questions of law and fact cannot be decided without recording evidence.

1. Thiruvampadi Rubber Co. Ltd., the defendant in O. S.569 of 1982 on the file of the Munsiff, Kozhikode-II, is the revision petitioner and the revision is directed against an order passed by that court on I.A. 3750 of 1983 refusing the request made therein to hear issue Nos. 1,4, 5 and 6 before hearing and deciding issue No. 3. The said application was filed under 0.14 R.1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The respondents herein instituted the above said suit against the revision petitioner for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the ground that the period of the registered lease-deed had expired. The revision petitioner resisted the suit filing a written statement mainly contending that he had sent the necessary premium of Rs. 693.75 before the expiry of the initial period of 36 years as stipulated in the lease deed, which was refused by the respondents herein, that by tendering the premium in time by virtue of the relevant clause the lease deed in question stood automatically renewed for another 36 years, that the suit is therefore premature, that the revision petitioner is entitled to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, that the court-fee paid is not correct and that the revision petitioner is entitled to value of improvements.

3. After hearing both sides and considering the pleadings in the suit 7 issues were framed by the trial court. They are:

"1. Whether the period of lease has expired inspite of the prescribed premium amount having been remitted for automatic renewal?

2. Whether the alleged termination of the lease is true and valid?

3. Whether the lease is an agricultural tenancy having fixity of tenure under the tenancy laws, if so, is the claim for eviction sustainable?

4. Is the suit premature?

5. Whether the defendant is entitled to value of improvements?

6. Whether the suit is properly valued and correct court-fee paid? and

7. Relief & cost."

4. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides rejected the prayers of the revision petitioner holding that issue No. 3 cannot be postponed till issue Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are heard and disposed of.

5. Attacking this order, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner strongly contended that the court below seriously erred in holding that on a preliminary issue arising for consideration under 0.14 R.2, no evidence can be recorded and that issue Nos. 1, 4 and 5 do not involve any question of law. According to the counsel, issue Nos.1 and 4 are the most important issues in this case as they affect the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit and therefore these issues ought to have been tried as a preliminary issue before trying issue No. 3. Relying on a decision in M.L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur (AIR. 1972 SC. 2379), the learned counsel submitted that wider meaning has been given to the word 'jurisdiction' and that the word jurisdiction has a verbal caste of many colours.

6. The question for consideration in this revision is whether by virtue of the provisions in 0.14 R.2, the revision petitioner is entitled to have issue Nos. 1, 4 and 5 beard and disposed of before issue No. 3 is taken up for consideration.

It is seen that the issues in the suit were framed as early as on 22nd March, 1983. Thereafter, the suit was posted for hearing on issue Nos. 3 and 6 and it was at that time I. A. No. 3750 of 1983 was filed by the revision petitioner under 0.14 R.2.0.14 R.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads:

"14. (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