SINGH, J. - (1.) THE learned counsels for both the parties agreed that the revision petition may be heard and finally decided.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8. 10. 1997 passed in civil suit no. 196/93 (5/82 ). By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Churu, considered several issues but decided only one issue, viz. , issue No. 8. It is admitted by the learned counsels for the parties that the non-petitioner had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract for sale and in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants Nos. 2 to 4, it was not disputed that the suit was within limitation but in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants No. 1, it was denied that the suit was filed within limitation. The issue No. 8, cannot be said to be an issue of law only within the meaning of Order 14 Rule 2 C. P. C. Rule 2 of Order 14 C. P. C. reads: " 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". A bare perusal of Order 14 Rule 2 C. P. C. shows that the normal rule to be followed by the civil courts is to decide all the issues together and in exceptional cases, issue of law can be decided as preliminary issues if the conditions laid down in sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 13 C. P. C. are satisfied. In the instant case, issue No. 8 could not be regarded as a question of law only. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge (J. D) was not justified in deciding the issue No. 8 as a preliminary issue.
(3.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, it must be held that by deciding the issue No. 8 as a preliminary issue, the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) has exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in him, in the light of the provisions contained in Order 14 Rule 2 C. P. C. Consequently, this revision petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 8. 10. 1997 by which issue No. 8 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant is hereby quashed and set aside and the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) is hereby directed to dispose of the case strictly in accordance with the provisions of Order 14 C. P. C. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Civil Judge without unnecessary delay for information and necessary action. .;