IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI MISC. PETITION No. 3758 of 2022 DEEPAK SHARMA Versus SMT. SUNITA SHARMA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Veer Kumar Jain, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vinay Kumar Zelawat, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aashay Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Heard on : 10.10.2025 Pronounced on : 31.10.2025 ORDER This miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated t h

17.08.2022 passed in case No.RCSA/43/2014 by the 7 District Judge, Ujjain, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of CPC has been rejected for trying the issues as preliminary issues and by the same order, the Court below has decided certain issues as preliminary issues.

2. Facts in short are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction, partition and possession against the petitioner and other respondents. After issuance of summons, the petitioner Signature Not Verified alongwith other respondents filed their written statement, apart from disputing the plaint averments have raised several purely legal objections regarding maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction. Prior to filing of present suit, respondent No.1 had filed a suit for same relief in the year 2013 and also filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC. The said suit was rejected for non-compliance under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The respondent No.1 did not challenge the said order of decree and instead filed the present suit with same cause of action however, adding more properties in the suit. While considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioner, the Trial Court ordered to delete certain pleadings and relief from the plaint under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC. The petitioner alongwith other respondents filed their written statement except the pleadings ordered to be struck off from the plaint. The respondent No.1 challenged the said order by filing a petition before this Court, which was allowed to the extent of striking off the pleadings with liberty to the petitioner and other respondents to make pleadings in defence of such struck off. Upon which, the petitioner alongwith other respondents amended their written statement, which was subsequently allowed. Learned Trial Court framed additional issues to the issues already framed on 11.07.2017. Since the issues No.16, 22, 23 & 24 are pure legal issues touching the maintainability of the suit and did not require recording of any evidence therefore, petitioner moved an application under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of CPC for treating the said issues as preliminary issues, which was decided by the Trial Court vide impugned order but without going into the merits of the Signature Not Verified issues and acting wholly illegal and without jurisdiction decided certain points and rejected the said application on the ground that aforesaid issues are not pure issues of law but are mixed questions of facts and law, which can only be decided after recording of evidence of the parties. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that issues No.16, 22, 23 & 24 are undoubtedly pure issues of law and do not require any evidence at all and they are touching very jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit hence, the same are preliminary issues. It is argued that object of the provision of Order 14 Rule 2(2) of CPC is to cut shot the litigation so as to avoid wastage of time, energy and protracted litigation in case the suit is not maintainable. It is further argued that the Trial Court has firstly considered some of the issues on merit and given finding thereon and thereafter, rejected the application by holding that aforesaid issues are mixed issues of law and fact. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the