Narayan Chandra Sil, J. - (1.) This is to consider a prayer as to whether there is necessity for hearing the Issue No. 2 as a preliminary issue. I have heard the learned Advocates for both the parties and in course of their submissions on the necessity for hearing of issue No. 2 very often that not the learned Advocate for both the parties overlapped and entered into the merits of hearing of the Issue No. 2 itself. Sometime, from the record and the subsequent order sheets also it appears as if the matter resting for hearing the Issue No. 2. But the order dated 10.9.04 is conspicuous enough to suggest that the necessity for hearing of Issue No. 2 is fixed and the matter for consideration not to dispose of Issue No. 2 itself.
(2.) Issue No. 2 reads as under : "Is the plaintiff debarred from filing the suit under the provisions of Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 as alleged in Paragraph 16 of the written statement ?".
(3.) Mr. Dutt appearing along with Mr. Ranjan Kr. Bachwat submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that there is no necessity for hearing the Issue No. 2 as a preliminary issue for the reason that in terms of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code hearing of Issue No. 2 will not help the Court to dispose of the suit itself. Mr. Bachwat has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 30 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 where it is ten that there is no bar to file the suit and in order to dispose of issue No. 2 the Court first is to come to the finding that the plaintiff is a Money Lender which again depends on the facts of the case.;