V SUBRAMANI Vs. ARUMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant whose I.A.No.1263 of 1992 praying for trying issue No.5 first as preliminary issue in the suit O.S.No.406 of 1987 was dismissed, is the petitioner herein. THE said issue no doubt raises the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court below to try the suit on the ground that the suit has been properly valued.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the court below has not given reasons for passing the abovesaid order of dismissal and that when the jurisdiction question is involved, O.14, Rule 2(a) is attracted and the court below should have agreed to take up the abovesaid issue as a preliminary issue to be tried before the other issues are tried.

(3.) FURTHER, as per O.14, Rule 2, C.P.C, only a question of law, if at all can be taken up as a preliminary issue. Issue No.5 in the present case, relating to jurisdiction, involves question of law and fact, since the question raised is that the suit has been not properly valued. In this connection, no doubt the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Mitsubishi France v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, (1984)2 M.L.J. 369: A.I.R. 1985 Mad. 300, contending that the said decision has held that even where mixed questions of law and fact are relatable to an issue raising jurisdiction question, that issue could be tried as preliminary issue. But, I find that the Supreme Court has observed in S.S.Khanna v. F.J.Dhillon, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 497, while interpreting 0.14, Rule 2, C.P.C., as follows: "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, but the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues. Normally, all the issues in a suit should be tried by the court; not to do so, especially when the decision on issues even of law depends upon the decision of issues of fact, would result in a lop-sided trial of the suit." So, I am bound by the Supreme Court decision. I am, therefore, quite convinced that this civil revision petition has to be dismissed.