Jurisdictional questions, including maintainability of a suit, must be assessed as preliminary issues under CPC Order 14 Rule 2 to ensure efficiency in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.Misra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. N.K.Dash, learned counsel for Opposite Parties.

2. Present CMP is directed against impugned order dated 4^th March 2025 of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), 1^st Court, Cuttack passed in C.S.(I) No.868 of 2020, wherein the prayer of Defendants No.1 to 3 under Order 14 Rule 2 (2) was rejected to decide the question as a preliminary issue.

3. Present Opposite Parties are the Plaintiffs who filed the suit in C.S. No.868 of 2020 against the Bank Authorities praying for following reliefs:-

23. That the plaintiffs therefore pray :

(a) Let a decree be passed directing the defendants No. 1 to 3 / Bank to execute and register a sale deed in respect of the auctioned properties detailed in the sale notice dt. 10.10.2019 in favour of the plaintiffs at a price of Rs.20,32,500/-, minus an amount of Rs. l,84,788/-( rupees one lakh eighty four seven hundred eighty eight only) which is the value of the stolen articles and electricity dues of Rs. 9,76,165/-. (b) Let, a decree for permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendants No. 1 to 3/ Bank from forfeiting the amount already deposited as aforesaid and from holding any further auction in respect of the suit auctioned properties.

(c) Let a decree for refund of the amount deposited as aforesaid with interest be passed in the alternative if it is not directed that the defendants No. 1 to 3 are to execute the sale deed.

(d) Let any other or further decree to which the plaintiffs are found to be entitled be passed in their favour.

(e) Let the cost of the suit be decreed.

4. It is submitted on behalf of Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the Petitioners that earlier the Defendant–Bank had filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC which was rejected by the learned Trial Court. The said order of the Trial Court was never challenged before higher forum.

5. After framing of issues, the Defendant –Bank filed another petition dated 29^th November 2024 under Order 14 Rule 2 (2) of the CPC to decide the question of maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue. According to Defendant– Bank the issue of maintainability being a pure question of law coming within the purview of Sub-clause(b) of Sub-rule 2 of Rule 2 of Order 14 should have been decided at the preliminary stage. But the learned Trial Court rejected such prayer mainly on the ground that it has already dealt with such prayer of Defendant –Bank under Order 7 Rule 11 petition.

6. Conversely, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that a prayer which was rejected earlier on the same question of maintainability of the suit in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the same cannot be entertained at a later stage in a different form Viz. Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC. He further submits that the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs cannot come within the purview of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred as Sarfaesi Act) being he is the auction purchaser for which the Civil Court is authorized to deal with.

7. Before delving further, it needs to be clarified here that this Court in the present proceeding is not authorized to enter upon the merits of contentions of the Defendant –Bank raised under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC. What needs to be seen here in the present case is that, whether the learned Trial Court has dealt with the objection of the Petitioners rightly under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC.

Sub-rule 2 of Order 14 authorizes the Court, where issues both of law and