ORDER
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.9.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon whereby an application filed by the defendant-petitioner in the suit for treating issues Nos.2 and 3 as preliminary issues, has been dismissed.
2. The trial Court while disposing of the application has noticed that the issues in the suit were framed on 6.9.1999 and thereafter the matter was adjourned for recording evidence to 3.11.1999. Undisputedly, the application for treating issues 2 and 3 as preliminary issues was filed after about two years of framing of the issues. No explanation worth the name has been given by the counsel for the petitioner for making such application belatedly.
3. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) provides that 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. Sub-rule (2) of the said Rule provides that 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 try that issue first if that 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 of that issue.
4. It is evident that the aforesaid provisions that where the issue of law only is involved in the suit and if the court is of the opinion that the suit or any part thereof can be disposed of on that issue only, it may try that issue first. Otherwise, as a matter of fact, the court is required to pronounce judgment on all issues.
5. Now issues Nos.2 and 3 which were sought to be treated as preliminary issues are noticed as under: –
2. Whether the partition has been effected between the parties? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
6. A perusal of the aforesaid issues shows that these issues do not fall in the ambit of provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14. These issues cannot be said to be pure issues of law only. It has been thus, rightly observed by the trial Court that these issues can only be decided after the parties have led their respective evidence. No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.