The court retains discretion to decide preliminary issues related to jurisdiction or limitation but may also resolve all issues simultaneously to avoid protracted litigation.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Original Suit No. 859 of 2006 was instituted by plaintiff-respondents for the cancellation of Will dated 21.05.1988 executed by one Ram Asrey in favour of defendant No. 1. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement. On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed by the trial court on 01.12.2008. Total eight issues were framed. Issue No. 3 relates to limitation^^D;k okn dky ckf/kr gqvk** and issue No. 6 is to the effect whether the suit in question is barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Thereafter, the evidence of plaintiff was recorded and on 02.07.2025 an application was filed by the defendant to decide issue Nos. 3 and 6 as preliminary issue.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basti, be directed to decide issue Nos. 3 and 6 framed in the suit i.e. Original Suit No. 859 of 2006, Ram Charitra Vs. Paras @ Ram Paras and others as preliminary issue before proceeding further with the suit. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already moved an application before the trial court for the said relief on 02.07.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of Rule 2 of Order XIV C.P.C. and submitted that since the issue Nos. 3 and 6 relates to limitation and jurisdiction of the civil court, they ought to be decided by the trial court as preliminary issue. It has also been submitted that no orders have been passed on application moved by the petitioner on 02.07.2025. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Rule 2 of Order XIV C.P.C., it is mandatory for the court below to try the issue relating to jurisdiction or a bar to the suit created by any law has to be decided first as preliminary issue and thereafter, to proceed with the matter.

4. Before considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to look into the provision as existed initially, i.e., before 1976 Amendment and thereafter. Rule 2 of Order XIV before being substituted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment ) Act, 1976, read as under:-

"Order XIV, Rule 2 --Issues of law and of fact -- Where the issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of 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 the issues of law have been determined."

5. After the amendment in Rule 2 by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, following Rule has been substituted as under:-

“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 thereof may 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 purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.

6. Unamended Rule 2 of Order XIV C.P.C. was held mandatory, therefore it was o