( 1 ) THIS is a revision from an order dated August 10, 1971 whereby the trial Court has postponed the decision of Issues Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 till the decision of the entire suit. The grievance in this revision is that those issues are preliminary issues and the trial Court was bound to decide them first. In not doing so, the trial court refused to exercise its jurisdiction and this Court must interfere under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) THE respondents Basanti Devi and Babulal have instituted this suit against the petitioners for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on the allegation that they deposited the amount with the defendants, but they are not returning the amount. The suit is resisted by the defendants on several grounds. Six issues were framed in the trial Court, the seventh being a formal issue. They may be reproduced here: -. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . It is obvious enough that issues 1 and 2 relate to the merits of the suit. Issue No. 3 is about the admissibility of the receipt on the basis of which the suit deposit was made. The objection was that it did not bear proper and adequate stamps. This point can certainly be raised and decided when the receipt is produced in evidence.

( 3 ) WHEN the issues were framed the trial Court in its order dated July 6, 1971 stated that issues 3 to 5 are legal issues and should be tried as preliminary issues. I suppose the Court meant to say issues 4 to 6 and not 3 to 5, because as would be pointed out just now issue No. 6 is undoubtedly a preliminary issue. The trial court fixed July 20, 1971 for hearing argument on the preliminary issues.

( 4 ) THE case could not be taken up on the 20th July or 22nd July or the 3rd August. When it was taken up on August 10, 1971, learned counsel for the defendants asked for an opportunity to produce evidence on those issues. This was opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. They contended that evidence should be recorded on all the issues together. On this, the learned trial Judge passed the following order:--esa og mfpr le> rk gw fd lhkh okn i= fy;s tk; andand (I consider it proper to record evidence on all the issues ). He then fixed October 21, 1971 for evidence of the parties on all the issues. The defendants are aggrieved by this order.

( 5 ) IT will be seen from the impugned order that the learned trial Judge did not give any reason for the order which he made. This was particularly necessary when in the earlier order he had called them "legal issues" and held that they should be tried as "preliminary issues". The trial Court did not say in the impugned order that on a reconsideration, it did not consider them to be preliminary issues. It did not apply its mind how the trial of the suit would be affected if any of the issues were decided by it at the conclusion of the trial in favour of the defendants. It must be said that the impugned order was mechanically arbitrarily passed. It is anything but a judicial order.

( 6 ) ISSUE Number 6 arises from the following objection taken in the written statement:-^^; g fd oknhx. k us vius dks e/;izns'k euhys. Mj ,dv ds vurxzr jftlvmz ugha djk;k gsa muds ikl mdr fo/kku ds vuqdwy dksbz osfym lfvzfqdsv hkh ugha gsa vr% oknhx. k us mdr fo/kku ds fu;eksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k gsa vr% mudk okn U;k;ky; esa fopkj ;ksx; ugha gsaa** the objection is that the suit is not maintainable. Whether this objection is right or wrong is not for me to consider today. If the objection is right and the Court holds that the suit is not maintainable, the whole trial will be futile. The objection goes to the root of the case and is undoubtedly a question of jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. The objection is that the suit for want of a certificate is not maintainable. This issue has necessarily to be decided as a preliminary issue because the trial of the suit cannot proceed unless the Court holds that the suit is maintainable. Under issue No. 4 the Court had to decide whet