The lower Court's refusal to address jurisdictional issues before proceeding to hear the suit on the merits amounted to irregularity and was open to interference in revision.

Sundaram Chetty, J.

1. In this case, the point is, whether the course which the lower Court has resolved to adopt is a matter for interference in revision. In a suit of this magnitude involving several questions both of law and fact, what is the reasonable method to be adopted, having regard to the economy of time and the trouble and expense to the parties? Issues Nos. 9 to 11 are, at any rate, issues relating to the jurisdiction of the Court to try this suit, and the validity of the sanction obtained by the plaintiffs for the institution of this suit. The decision of these questions as preliminary points first, before entering upon the trial of the other issues, would be; the best course. The order of the lower Court is virtually a refusal to go into the question of jurisdiction before proceeding to hear the suit on the merits. This may amount to an irregularity, open to the High Court to interfere in revision [Vide Udmiram Ram Sarup v. Ghasiram Sukhan Lal AIR1933All7 ]. I am in agreerment with the view expressed in that decision. Of course, the lower Court will not indefinitely adjourn the further trial of the suit, if it is found necessary after the disposal of the said Issues Nos. 9 to 11, but will go on with the trial with all possible promptitude. If in the meanwhile an application is made for the examination of any witnesses, for the special reasons mentioned in Order XVIII, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, their evidence will be recorded. The order of the lower Court is modified in the aforesaid manner. In the special circumstances I make no order as to costs.