M. L. Bhat, J. - (1.) THESE two first appeals No. 275 of 1993 and 279 of 1993 are being decided by this common judgement.
(2.) THE court below has dismissed the two suits filed by the appellants on the ground that the suits are not maintainable. THE appellants have challenged the findings of the court below in these two appeals. It appears that the appellants had filed the two civil suits in the court below in which they had prayed for a relief of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from levying and collecting any fees under section 17 of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), on the ground that the respondents have failed to provide the amenities and discharge their duties as imposed on them under section 16 of the Act. Written statement was filed by the respondents in both the suits. The court below had framed issues also. However, on subsequent date, the court below framed two additional issues with regard to the maintainability of the suit and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties it held thai the civil suits were not maintainable in the present form. It is borne out from the record that the petitioners had filed writ petitions before this Court in which they had challenged the levy and collection of fees under section 17 of the Act but the said writ petitions Were dismissed by this Court on 26-11-1987 with the following observations. "After having perused the, writ petition we are of the opinion that as the controversy involved in the case would require evidence for being resolved. We are not in a position to do so under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners may file a civil suit, if advised for the purpose of getting the relief prayed for. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he filed the civil suit in pursuance of the afforested observation of the High Court in its judgement dated 26-11-1987. THE high Court has refused to grant relief because they did not consider it proper to go into the disputed questions of fact which required, recording of evidence and for the relief prayed for in the writ petition, the High Court had granted liberty to the petitioners to file civil suits. THErefore, court below could not have dismissed the suit as not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC trial court was bound to pronounce judgement on all the issues. The trial court has not decided any issue as preliminary issue. The trial court framed all the issues and decided to take evidence on all the issues including on the plea of non-maintainability of suit raised by the defendants. Thereafter, trial court could not: frame additional issues and dismissed the suit on those issues which could not be treated as preliminary issues.;