RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) Heard Sri Rakesh Singh for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for State. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 9.3.2016 by which the application of the petitioner to decide issues no. 1 to 4 as preliminary issue has been rejected and date has been fixed for evidence of the parties and the order of Additional Commissioner dated 3.2.2017 dismissing the revision of the petitioner filed against the aforesaid order.
(2.) I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. Order 14, Rule 2 CPC provides as follows :- Court to pronounce judgment on all issues. (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a 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 try 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.
(3.) Thus the court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application to decide issue no. 1 to 4 as preliminary issue. Otherwise also no forum has been given under Schedule 2 of UP Act No. 1 of 1951 for entertaining the application / suit under Section 164 of the Act, therefore, the Assistant Collector is competent authority to declare the validity of transaction as to whether the provisions of Section 164 of the Act will comply or not. In the absence of any of the forum it cannot be said that the Assistant Collector has no jurisdiction to decide the issue. No interference is required by this Court.;