@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P.K. Misra, J.@mdashHeard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. The defendants 2 and 4 in O.S. No. 442/1997 on the file of
Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam have filed these Civil Revisions challenging the order of the trial court dated 10.11.2003. The two
defendants had filed interim applications for considering the question of the pecuniary jurisdiction as well as the sufficiency of court fee paid as
preliminary issue. The trial court, on consideration of materials, has come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to take up such matter as
preliminary issue. The trial court has also observed that the court fee paid is sufficient and it has got jurisdiction.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in view of the provisions contained in Order XIV Rule 2CPC, the question
relating to jurisdiction should have been taken as a preliminary issue. He has further submitted that at any rate the question before the court at that
stage was whether the matter should be taken as a preliminary issue or not and therefore the trial court should not have given findings regarding the
sufficiency of court fee and regarding the jurisdiction of the court and should have been taken either preliminary issue or as an issue along with
other questions.
3. Order XIV Rule 2CPC is extracted hereunder.
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 by 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.
4. On a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that ordinarily the court should try all the issues together and an issue may be taken up as a
preliminary issue only if it relates to the question of jurisdiction and it is based purely on a question of law. In other words, where for deciding a
particular issue relating to jurisdiction evidence would be necessary, such issue should not be considered as a preliminary issue.
5. In the present case, the question raised by the defendants is dependant upon evidence to be taken and is not a pure question of law relating to
jurisdiction of the Court and therefore the trial court was right in observing that the issue need not be taken as a preliminary issue. However, once
such a conclusion was reached, the trial court should not have made any observation which may prima facie indicate as if the trial court has also
decided the questions raised on merit.
6. In such view of the matter, the order of the trial court to the extent that it has refused to take up the question as preliminary issue is upheld.
However, it is observed that the question relating to pecuniary jurisdiction as well as the question relating to sufficiency of court fee should be
considered by the trial court along with other questions. It is made clear that the present order should not be considered as expressing any opinion
on the merits of the contentions raised and the matter has to be decided in accordance with law by the trial court. The civil revision petitions are
rejected, subject to the aforesaid observations. No costs. Connected CMP No. 5236 and 5237 of 2004 are also rejected.