- (1.) The present petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the trial Court date 23rd September, 1978, whereby issue No. 4 i.e. whether the suit is correctly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction, has been found against him and he was further directed to make the deficiency in the Court-fee of Rs. 4,320/- by the impugned order.
(2.) From the impugned order of the trial Court I find that the learned Subordinate Judge heard the arguments for a couple of days and had examined both oral and documentary evidence, but has only confined himself by giving his finding on Issue No. 4. The other issues on which admittedly the evidence has been recorded have not been decided by him. Order 14, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides :- "2. 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." According to this provision the trial Court is to pronounce judgment on all issues, unless a case falls under sub-rule (2) thereof. In the present case, issue No. 4 relating to the valuation and Court fee matter could be taken up as a preliminary one, but once the Court records the evidence on all the issues, then at that stage, reading of the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, makes it clear that the Court has to pronounce judgment on all issues. The petitioner has taken a specific ground in this Court that the whole case has been fully tried and argued, but the Court in contravention of sub-rule 2 of Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended, has confined its order only to the Court-fee issue which amounts to acting altogether illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondents, in reply to this contention, stated that since the Court had decided issue No. 4 vide impugned order it should not be set aside on this ground alone.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in this case the trial Court has failed to comply with the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2, which provide that the Court shall pronounce judgment on all issues, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) thereof. Since sub-rule (2) is not attracted to the facts of the present case, it is proper and in the fitness of circumstances, as well as to do justice between the parties that the trial Court should decide and pronounce judgment on all the issues.;