SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Paras @ Ram Paras – Appellant
Versus
Ram Charitra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Amit Kumar Pandey, Kali Charan Yadav

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court directed to decide all issues together expeditiously rather than as preliminary issues. (!) - After amendment, Order XIV Rule 2(1)-(2) allows court to pronounce judgment on all issues even if there is a preliminary issue, with discretion to try preliminary issues relating to jurisdiction or bar to suit first. (!) (!) (!) - The discretion to decide preliminary issues is not mandatory; the court may choose to hear all issues together to avoid protracted litigation. (!) (!) (!) - The case emphasizes that issues of law may be preliminary only if they relate to jurisdiction or bar to the suit, and such determination is discretionary. (!) (!) - The suit in question was 2006; defendant filed application on 02.07.2025 to decide issues 3 and 6 as preliminary; court declined to treat them as preliminary and preferred adjudicating all issues together. (!) (!) (!)

How to decide whether issues of limitation and jurisdiction should be heard as preliminary issues or along with all issues?

What is the court’s discretion under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC regarding pronouncing judgment on all issues despite a preliminary issue?

What are the circumstances under which a court may decide issues of jurisdiction or bar to a suit as preliminary issues rather than along with other issues?


Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the original suit. (Para 2)
2. contention for preliminary issue resolution. (Para 3)
3. court's discretion on issues of law and procedure. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. court's directive for expeditious hearing. (Para 24 , 25)

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 co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top