The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the impugned order to finally decide the suit for revision to be maintainable under Section 115 of C.P.C.

Plaintiff is the petitioner herein, who has filed the suit in O.S.No.1279 of 1998 on the file of Sub-Court, Coimtatore, for recovery of Rs.29,64,000/-, with interest and costs, against the respondents herein.

2. Respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.1071 of 2001 under Order 14 Rule 4 and Section 151 of C.P.C., praying to decide the preliminary issue as to whether the said Court is vested with the territorial jurisdiction to try the said suit, as this Court, in C.R.P.No.1513 of 1997, directed to decide the same.

3. The trial Court, after affording an opportunity to the parties, allowed the petition, holding that it is not vested with the territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision.

4. Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner agreed to purchase the property in Coimbatore and approached the first respondent herein at his Coimbatore office, paid the amount and entered into an agreement; later, they found some defect in the title of the property and, hence, the agreement was cancelled, but the respondent failed to return the amount; the initial cause of action, namely, offer of the first respondent to sell the property located in Coimbatore and acceptance of the petitioner to purchase the same arose at Coimbatore; hence, Coimbatore Court alone is vested with the jurisdiction and not the Chennai Court.

5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the trial Court erroneously thought it was only a suit for recovery of amount, without taking into account the initial cause of action, which arose at Coimbatore. He also submitted that, as against the impugned order, Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable.

6. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur, v. M/s.Swaraj Developers and others, reported in 2003 (2) M.L.J. 170 (S.C.)

7. Per contra, Mr.S.Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the suit is only for recovery of money simpliciter; Power of Attorney of the plaintiff is residing at Chennai; the respondents are also carrying on business at Chennai; the initial agreement was entered into at Chennai; the amount was paid at Chennai, and hence, the Court at Chennai is competent to try the case.

8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that, as per the direction of this Court in C.R.P.No.1513 of 1997, the trial Court was directed to try the jurisdiction question as the preliminary issue and, accordingly, the same was decided, holding that the Court at Coimbatore does not have the territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel further added that the revision filed against the order of the trial Court is not sustainable, since it is only interim in nature and did not finally decide the lis. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the revision.

9. Order 14 Rule 2 of C.P.C.reads as follows :

"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 force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue."

10. Under Rule 2, Order 14 of C.P.C., where the 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 shall try thos