Surinder Singh, J. - (1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in this matter. The only question which is mooted is, whether the trial Court was justified in refusing to treat issue No. 1 as preliminary issue. It is not disputed that the said issue pertains to the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit in view of the bar created by Ss. 84 and 86 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. As observed by the trial Court, the objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is based upon certain factual allegations made by the revision Petitioner in his suit. These allegations have been controverted by the Respondents in their written statement. As long as these factual controversial items are not determined, it cannot be said that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. As emphasised by me on an earlier occasion in Hardwari Lal v/s. Pokhar Mal and Ors., 1978 PLR 252, there is an essential difference between an inherent lack of jurisdiction and the lack of juris diction based upon certain factual allegations. An issue can be treated as a preliminary issue only if it is purely an issue of law which merely requires argument and does not require any evidence to be led on factural controversy. In the present case, the trial court has held that there are point of controversy in so far as facts are concerned. The trial Court was, therefore, quite justified in refusing to treat the issue as a preliminary one.
(2.) There is no merit in this Revision Petition which is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
(3.) The parties, through their counsel have been directed to appear before the trial Court on January 15, 1981.;