Under Rule 2 of Order 14, a Court must pronounce judgment on all issues, both of law and facts, and cannot adopt the principle of severability to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues of law.

Where a Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, under sub-rule (1), clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court in such a situation to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1) clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been framed together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit. (Para 9) Advocate(s): Ajay Kumar, for Petitioners; Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Counsel with Janesh Gupta, for Respondents. JUDGEMENT V. K. Gupta, C.J. :- In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 21st January, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.1, Rohru in Suit No. 116/1 of 2003, on 6th July, 2006 a learned Single Bench of this Court passed a detailed order with respect to the question of law arising for consideration in this petition touching upon the interpretation to be placed upon Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure in so far as this Rule deals with the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction to be exercised by a Civil Court for deciding preliminary issues of law, pure and simple and/or the preliminary issues of law as well as of facts, independent of the other, main issues both of law and fact which might arise for adjudication in the suit and upon which the parties go for trial. For ready reference the order dated 6th July, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge touching upon the aforesaid aspects and formulating the question of law for consideration by the Full Bench is reproduced hereunder :- "During the course of arguments of this petition, Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while drawing my attention to the Issues framed in the suit submitted that Issue Nos.3, 5 and 7 related to the jurisdiction of the suit as well as its maintainability and despite that the learned Court below rejected the petitioners application filed under order 14, R 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. hether in a suit where all the Issues, both of law and of fact, have been framed and all the Issues have also been tried together, all parties to the suit having adduced their evidence with respect to all the Issues, is it permissible for a Court to take up Issues of law first and give findings or pronounce judgment on such Issues only if such Issues relate to the jurisdiction of the Court and/or the very maintainability of the suit? Does sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure or for that matter any other provision of the law prohibit the Court from adopting such a course of action? Since on its plain reading, sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 14 is subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Order 14, in a situation, where the stage contemplated by sub-rule (2) is over, can the Court adopt the aforesaid course of action in deciding first Issues of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Court and the maintainability of the suit and, if decision on such Issues of law renders the suit non-maintainable or results in a finding about the lack of jurisdiction in the trial Court, is it permissible for the Court not to pronounce judgment or give findings on other Issues? The aforesaid being important question of law and there not being