1. In both the revision petitions, only question to be considered is whether the Addl. District Judge has committed any illegality or irregularity in holding that the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction can only be decided after taking evidence.
2. The plaintiff's case is that the cause of action arose at Kishangarh and the defendant's objection is that the entire cause of action arose at Amritsar and no cause of action arose at Kishangarh. Obviously it is a disputed question of fact and can only be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence of the parties.
3. I have gone through the order of the Addl. District Judge. It arises out of a mixed question of fact and law, and it suffers from no infirmity.
4. Order 14(2) of the CPC is as under:
“2. Court to pronounce judgement 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 judgement on all issues.
(2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case of 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.
5. In view of the clear and unambiguous language of sub-cl. (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14, an issue can be considered and decided as a preliminary issue if it is an issue of law only and on the case or part of it can be disposed of.
6. There is no provision that even though issue about limitation or jurisdiction is to be considered on disputed facts, then also evidence should be recorded on it first and it must be decided as a preliminary issue. Since the provision is not there, I cannot provide it by legislation, as a Court can only interpret and not legislate.
7. Admittedly the issue regarding jurisdiction in the instant case being based on disputed questions of fact, cannot be termed as purely legal issue.
8. The lower court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to decide it as a preliminary issue, and therefore, impugned order is perfectly just and legal.
9. The revision application, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Petition dismissed.