The issue of undervaluation of a suit cannot be tried as a preliminary issue because it is not a pure question of law relating to jurisdiction or a bar to the suit created by law.

JUDGMENT :

R.C. Patnaik, J. - Aggrieved by an order dated 5-1-1989 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, in Title Suit No. 190 of 1985 directing the issue as to whether the suit had been undervalued to be taken up and decided as a preliminary issue, the plaintiffs have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. In respect of 5.21 acres of land the plaintiffs sought declaration of their title and for a declaration that the entry of the names of the defendants in the Record-of-Rights was erroneous and for permanent injunction. They valued the articles for 2 lacs for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction. The defendants challenged the valuation put by the plaintiffs alleging that the suit had been grossly undervalued. Originally six issues were framed and parties went to trial. After closure of the plaintiffs evidence, an application was filed on behalf of the defendants stating that an issue as to the undervaluation of the plant be struck having regard to the plea taken in the written statement and the same be taken up as a preliminary issue. On the said application, issue No. 7 was framed as hereunder:

"7. Is the suit undervalued?"

and the learned Subordinate Judge decided that the said issue would be taken up and decided as a preliminary issue.

3. Shri K. Patnaik the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the order is contrary to the provisions contained in Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the question being neither a pure question of law nor a question relating to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force and relied upon two decisions of this Court, namely, Madhabananda Ray and Anr. v. Spencer and Company Ltd. 1987 (II) OLR 39, 64 (1937) CLT 560, and B.N. Dash and six Ors. v. Bijay Ketan Mohanty 53 (1984) CLT 311.

4. The learned Advocate-General, on the other hand, has contended that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC if the relief claimed was undervalued and the plaintiffs on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the Court, failed to do so. Hence, a question of valuation of the relief can and should be disposed of as a preliminary issue. He has urged that the two decisions of this Court relied up on by the counsel for the petitioners have not taken into consideration the scope and impact of the provisions contained in Order 7, Rule 11 since the question did not arise in those cases for consideration.

5. Having regard to the importance of the question involved, this matter has been referred to a Division Bench for decision and this is how it has come before us.

6. The objects and the reasons for change introduced by the Amendment Act, 1976 and the mischief that was sought to be cured have been noticed in the cases of Madhabananda Ray (supra) and B. N. Dash (supra). The position of law as regards the scope of Order 14, Rule 2 prior to its amendment was considered by the Supreme Coat in Major S.S. Khanna Vs. Brig. F.J. Dillon and it was also the settlled position of law prior to amendment that in appealable cases, the Court should as far as possible decide on all the issues joined since piecemeal trial of some, might lead to protracted litigation causing harassment to parties. With a view to avoiding the aforesaid mischief, Order 14, Rule 2 was amended as under :

"Rule 2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues :

(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on 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 there ofmay 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 pu