Wanchoo, C.J.— These are three connected revisions against the orders of Civil Judge, Ratangarh, and arise in the following on circumstances :

2. Three suits were brought by Munnalal and other plaintiffs against three different sets of attendants in the court of Civil Judge, Rataugarh. In all the three suits, the defendants raised a question whether the trial court had territorial jurisdiction to decide the suits and an issue was framed on that point. The defendants in all those cases asked the trial court to decide the issue of jurisdiction first. The trial court rejected this contention mainly on the ground that the issue of jurisdiction was also connected with another issue relating to execution of the document which was the basis of the suit.

3. The defendants in the three suits have come to this Court in revision, and it is contended on their behalf that the trial court acted with illegality or material irregularity in not allowing their prayer for deciding the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, and that this Court should order the trial court to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants rely in this connection on the observations in certain cases in which it has been said that it is desirable that issues of jurisdiction should be decided first. There are, at the same time, observations in numerous other cases in which High Courts have held that the trial court should not decide a suit piecemeal, and that it is best that the whole suit should be decided at one time. We are of opinion that these observations as to the desirability of the course to be followed are not so important in a matter of this kind. The question we have to see is whether the trial court acted with illegality or material irregularity, it is only if we come to the conclusion that the trial court acted with illegality or material irregularity that we can interfere in its discretion. Otherwise the trial court should always be left with the discretion to try the suit as best as it can provide the trial is in accor-dance with the procedure in the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The only provision in the Code to which learned counsel could point out, which compels a trial court to decide certain issues first and thus gives a right to the party to insist that the trial court must decide certain issues first, is to be found in O. XlV, R. 2 which runs as follows—

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 the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined.

Unless, therefore, the applicants can satisfy us that O. XIV, R. 2 applies in terms to the situtation in these cases, they have no right to come to this Court in revision, and insist that this Court should interfere in revision, and direct the trial court to proceed with the trial of the suit in this manner or that

6 What then is exactly the scope of O. XIV, rule 2? It provides for disposal of certain issues as preliminary issues. But there are two conditions which, in our opinion, must be fulfilled before it can be applied. The first condition is that the issue must been issue of law, i.e. it should not be an issue either of fact or mixed fact and law, but an issue of law pure and simple. The second condition is that the court should be of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on that issue. This does not, in our opinion, mean that the issue is of such a nature that its decision may result in the disposal of the suit. What Order XIV, R. 2 requires, in our opinion is that the court should look at the issue of law, and if it is of opinion that prima facia the decision will go one way, namely that the case or pare of the case would come to an end, it should proceed to decide the issue as a p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document