( 1. ) THE only grievance in this revision is that the trial Court has erred in refusing to decide as preliminary issues four additional issues, which were framed on the defendants application dated December 6, 1974. These issues are:-

" (1) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? (2) Whether the suit is time barred ? (3) Whether the suit is not properly valued ? Its effect. (4) Whether the plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of section 80, civil Procedure Code ? Its effect. "

These issues having been framed by the trial Court, the defendants requested the Court to try them as preliminary issues. By order dated January 13, 1975, the trial Court rejected that request with the observation that these issues would also be determined along with the other issues. The reason stated in the order is that on July 15, 1970, the parties had requested the Court to determine the preliminary issues along with other issues.

( 2. ) SHRI Tares contention is that the order of the trial Court is, on the face of it, erroneous inasmuch as the question of the parties agreement could not arise on July 15, 1970, regarding the issues which were framed subsequently, i. e , on January 13, 1975. It is urged by the learned counsel for the defendants that these issues are preliminary in nature and they would go to the root of the matter. The trial Court could not postpone the determination of these issues, because to decide at the end of the trial, that the Court has no jurisdiction, or to hold that the suit is not properly valued, or to hold that there was no compliance with the provisions of section 80, Civil Procedure Code, would mean waste of time of the Court and the parties. The very nature of these issues requires that they must be determined first, before the other issues are tried, even if evidence has to be recorded on these preliminary issues. Reliance is placed on Santosh chandra v. Gyansundarbai, 1970 MPLJ 363. and Shri Krishna v. Gopal krishna, 1972 MPLJ Note 116 (C. R. No. 184/71 decided on 12-1-1972 ).

( 3. ) SHRI Rais contention is that since evidence will have to be recorded on these issues, they cannot be decided without evidence being recorded and they cannot be treated as preliminary issues.

( 4. ) BROADLY speaking, issues are of four categories:-

(1) Pure questions of law, which are preliminary, i. e. which would go to the root of the case and on their decision, the suit may be disposed of. (2) Mixed questions of law and fact, which are preliminary in nature and may result in the disposal of the suit. (3) Pure questions of law which may not be preliminary, i. e. , which may not dispose of the entire suit. (4) Questions of law, which are mixed with facts on which facts there are independant issues of fact to be tried.

I am clearly of the opinion that issues of the first two categories must be disposed of first, and even if it is necessary to record evidence, the Court must record evidence on those issues only, and, postpone the decision of the other issues of facts until after the issues of law have been determined. As regards the issues of the third and the fourth categories, it is discretionary with the court whether to decide them first or to postpone their determination along with other issues of fact. In S. S. Khanna v. S. J. Dillan, AIR 1964 SC 497. their Lordships have laid down thus : -

"under Order 14, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 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 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 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. "

After these observations, their Lordships