The court's discretion in framing a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction or bar to the suit should be exercised only when it is so clear that the decision will decide the suit finally once and for all without recording any evidence.

1. The Civil Revision Petitioner is the second defendant and the first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant in the suit.

2. The Civil Revision petitioner is a Co-operative Society. The first respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit O.S. No.97 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Arni, for a declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction against the defendants. The second defendant has filed a written statement wherein he has raised an objection that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the matter falls within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act, 1983 and the Rules framed thereunder. The second defendant raised an objection that there was a valid award passed against the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,05,981.60, and the plaintiff, who is the sister of the first defendant, has instituted the suit with a view to harass the second defendant. The petitioner filed an application under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C. and claimed that the question of jurisdiction may be tried and decided as a preliminary issue. The lower Court posed the question whether the Court has the jurisdiction to try the case or not. After considering the arguments advanced by and on behalf of the parties, learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff is not a member or an employee of the Co-operative Society and hence, under Rule 90, there is no statutory bar against the plaintiff to file the suit. The trial Court also held that the suit is for declaration and the Civil Revision petitioner has obtained an order of interim in junction in I.A. No.314 of 1993 and after obtaining he interim in junction, it is not open to the Civil Revision petitioner to contend that the civil court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial Court held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and in this view of the matter, dismissed the application filed by the Civil Revision petitioner.

.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower Court erred in dismissing the application for framing the preliminary issue. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question whether the Civil Court has the necessary jurisdiction to try the suit should be considered at the time of trial of the suit and the order of the lower Court dismissing the application even at threshold is not sustainable in law. He referred to the provisions of Section 156 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and also the Rule 135 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. Section 156 of the said Act imposes a statutory bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with reference to an order of award passed, a decision or action taken or direction issued under the Co-operative Societies Act by an arbitrator, a liquidator, a Registrar or an Officer authorised or empowered by him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the award has already been passed against the first defendant, the present suit instituted is, in substance, a proceeding to set aside the award or against the enforcement of the award. He also referred to Rule 135 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 which provides for investigation of the claims and objections to the attachment of property. The case of the petitioner is that if the plaintiff claims that she is entitled to claim an interest in the suit property, it is always open to her to prefer a claim before the Registrar under the Rule 135 of the said Rules, and on such a claim being made, the sale Officer will investigate the claim or objection and dispose of it on merits. According to him, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to try the suit. He also submitted that the lower Court erred in dismissing the application without considering the provision of Section 156 and Rule 135 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and Rules. There is no representat