Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. N. MITHAL, K. K. BIRLA
MANAGER, BETTIAH ESTATE - Appellant
Versus
BHAGWATI SARAN SINGH - Respondents
First Appeal 117 Of 1991
Decided On : 03/27/1992
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 14 RULE 2 - PRELIMINARY ISSUES - JURISDICTION - BAR TO SUIT - COURT'S DISCRETION - FACTUAL CONTROVERSY - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - DECIDING ISSUES AS PRELIMINARY ISSUES - COURT'S POWER - INTERPRETATION OF ORDER 14 RULE 2 - AMENDMENT OF 1976 - SCOPE AND PURPOSE - ISSUES RELATING TO JURISDICTION OR BAR TO SUIT - COURT'S DISCRETION TO DECIDE AS PRELIMINARY ISSUES - CONDITIONS - COURT'S DUTY TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT ON ALL ISSUES - EXCEPTIONS - COURT'S POWER TO POSTPONE SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES OF FACT - COURT'S DUTY TO AVOID PIECE-MEAL TRIAL AND PROTRACTED LITIGATION - COURT'S DISCRETION TO DECIDE ISSUES AS PRELIMINARY ISSUES - JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES - COURT'S DUTY TO EXAMINE FILE PERIODICALLY AND SUMMARIZE HISTORY OF CASE - COURT'S DUTY TO DISPOSE OF ALL APPLICATIONS BEFORE RECORDING EVIDENCE - COURT'S DUTY TO BE VIGILANT - COURT'S DUTY TO CONFINE ITSELF TO LEGAL ASPECT OF PRELIMINARY ISSUES - COURT'S DUTY TO AVOID ENTERING INTO FACTUAL CONTROVERSY - COURT'S DUTY TO GIVE PARTIES OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD EVIDENCE - COURT'S DUTY TO DECIDE SUIT AFTER PARTIES HAVE LED EVIDENCE ON ALL ISSUES - COURT'S DUTY TO MAINTAIN TIME SCHEDULE FIXED BY APPELLATE COURT - COURT'S DUTY TO CLARIFY PLEADINGS AND FINALIZE ISSUES BEFORE TRIAL - COURT'S DUTY TO COMPLETE ORAL EVIDENCE WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME - COURT'S DUTY TO DECIDE SUIT WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME - COURT'S DUTY TO AWARD COSTS TO SUCCESSFUL PARTY - COURT'S DUTY TO AVOID EXPRESSING OPINIONS ON MERITS OF ISSUES INVOLVED - COURT'S DUTY TO DECIDE ISSUES ON MERITS ON BASIS OF EVIDENCE BEFORE IT - COURT'S DUTY TO AVOID BEING SWAYED OR PREJUDICED BY OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY APPELLATE COURT ON MERITS OF ISSUES INVOLVED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that an ex parte decree obtained by the defendant in a previous suit was null and void and not binding on him. The defendant raised a plea that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff was aware of the pendency of the previous suit and had participated in it, and that an application for setting aside the ex parte decree had already been dismissed. The trial court framed 11 issues, but disposed of issues 4, 5, and 6 as preliminary issues, finding against the plaintiff on all three issues and dismissing the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court erred in deciding the suit on preliminary issues alone, as none of the issues related to the jurisdiction of the court or to the bar of any existing law, and that the court should have awaited trial of all the issues before proceeding to pronounce the judgment disposing of the suit finally.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in deciding issues 4, 5, and 6 as preliminary issues? 2. Whether the trial court erred in entering into the factual controversy behind the preliminary issues? 3. Whether the trial court erred in not confining itself to the legal aspect of the preliminary issues? 4. Whether the trial court erred in not giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence on the preliminary issues?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1976, provides that the court may dispose of an issue of law as a preliminary issue only if it relates to the jurisdiction of the court or to a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and if the court is of the opinion that the decision of the issue will result in the disposal of the whole or a part of the suit. 2. The court has the discretion to decide an issue of law as a preliminary issue, but this discretion must be exercised judiciously and only when it is clear that the decision will dispose of the suit finally and once for all without the necessity of recording any evidence. 3. The court must confine itself to the legal aspect of the preliminary issue and must not enter into the factual controversy behind the issue. 4. The court must give the parties an opportunity to lead evidence on the preliminary issue before deciding it.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision on all the issues after parties have led their evidence.
( 1 ) THE suit of the plaintiff having been dismissed on preliminary issues he has come up in appeal before this Court.
( 2 ) THE two main submissions of the appellants are that the trial court has erred in deciding these issues as preliminary issues which ought to have been left for decision after the entire evidence had been recorded along with remaining issues and that even while deciding the issues as preliminary issues the court had erred in not confining itself to the legal aspect of these issues by also entering into the merits of factual controversy.
( 3 ) TO appreciate the controversy it would be necessary to first have the background facts leading to the suit. In the State of Bihar a large Estate known as Bettiah Estate was put under the management of the Court of Wards because its last owner Rani Janki Kunwar was said to be of unsound mind. On her death disputes arose about the succession to the property and a large number of claimants filed suits claiming succession to the estate. All these suits were ultimately disposed of by the Supreme Court by its decision reported in AIR 1983 SC 864 (sic) whereby all the suits by the various claimants were dismissed. The Court however, left it open to the State of Bihar to consider whether the estate had escheated to the State of Bihar. It was at this stage that suit No. 335/83 was filed by defendant No. 1 impleading his own father as defendant No. 1 and the court of wards Bihar and Gorakhpur as pro forma defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The defendant No. 1 initially filed the written statement but thereafter withdrew from the contest. The pro forma defendants also did not contest the suit as a result whereof the suit was decreed ex parte. Attempts were then made by the court of awards Bihar and the Collector Gorakhpur to have the ex parte decree set aside but their applications were. dismissed and at present "first Appeal From Orders are pending in this Court against those orders. Admittedly that aspect of the matter has not yet become final.
( 4 ) THE manager Bettiah Estate subsequently filed a suit No. 140 of 1984 seeking inter alia the relief of declaration that the decree obtained by the defendant No. 1 in suit No. 335 of 1983 was null and void and it was not binding on the plaintiff. Some other reliefs also have been claimed including the relief of possession over one of the properties situate within the State of U. P. The trial Court framed as many as 11 issues on the pleadings of the parties but by the impugned order it has disposed of issues Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as preliminary issues, all of which have been decided against the plaintiff. In the light of the findings on these issues the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed which has occasioned the filing of this First Appeal.
( 5 ) ORDER 14 Rule 2 of the Code as it stood prior to the Amendment 1976 was as under :"where issues both of law and facts arise in the same suit, and the Court is of the opinion that the case of any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of issues of fact until after issues of law have been determined. "
( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of S. S. Khanna v. Brig. F. J. Dillon while interpreting the said rule expressed itself in these words :-"under O. XIV R. 2 of Civil P. C. where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after issues of law have been determined. The jurisdiction of the Court to try issues of law apart from the issues of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the Court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of law alone, but the. Code confers no jurisdiction upon the court to try a
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
