JUDGMENT
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. This revision has arisen out of the order, dated 18.6.1999, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, in Money Suit No. 10/96. Perused the materials on record including the impugned order.
2. I have heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for opposite party.
3. The plaintiff-opposite party instituted Money Suit No. 10/96 aforementioned claiming, inter alia, recovery of the monetary dues and also compensation. The defendants, who are petitioners in the present revision, filed their written statement contending, inter alia, that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was barred by limitation. Both sides were heard by the learned trial Court on these two issues as preliminary issues. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court, while holding to the effect, inter alia, that the Court had the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, concluded that so far as the issue of limitation is concerned, the same was a mixed question of facts and law and could not have, therefore, been decided as a preliminary issue. Aggrieved by the order, so passed on 18.6.1999, the present revision has been filed by the defendants as indicated hereinabove.
4. Upon perusal of the plaint and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it clearly transpires that both the issues, which were tried as preliminary issues, were, as a matter of fact, mixed issues of facts and law. This position is not seriously disputed before me by the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that both the issues, in question, were issues of facts and law, the same could not have been disposed of as preliminary issues in exercise of the power under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC. This position of law is also not in dispute before me. However, it has been contended, on behalf of the defendants-petitioners, that if the revision is not allowed, it may bar the defendants-petitioners from agitating the two issues, which were disposed of as preliminary issues by the learned trial Court, at the time of hearing of the suit, when all the issues framed in the suit are taken up for consideration by the learned trial Court.
5. In view of the fact that the two preliminary issues, which were disposed of by the impugned order, were issues of facts and law and the same could not have been tried as preliminary issues, it logically follows that the trial Court ought to have tried and decided the two issues, namely, the issue relating to the territorial jurisdiction and also the issue relating to the question of limitation along with other issues framed in the suit at the time of disposal of the suit. Considered thus, while maintaining the impugned order, it is made clear that the learned trial Court shall try both the said issues, i.e., the issue relating to the territorial jurisdiction and the issue relating to the question of limitation along with other issues framed in the suit, on merit, at the time of hearing of the suit.
6. With the above discussion and observations, this revision shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
7. Send back the LCR immediately.