JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— This is an appeal from an order of remand made under section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs-respondents brought their suit for recovery of a certain sum of money on the basis of an award of arbitrators. In the alternative they claimed the same amount as due to them on the basis of an alleged compromise which had taken place during the pendency of the proceedings before the arbitrators. There were “three defendants, of whom Nos. 2 and 3 were no parties to the arbitration proceedings. The Court of first instance framed four issues, the first of which was as follows:— “Whether the arbitrators made and pronounced the award sued upon; and whether it can be enforced against the defendants Nos. 2 and 3.” The Court tried the first portion of the issue, and came to the ‘conclusion that the award was invalid and could not be enforced against any one of the defendants. It then proceeded to consider the question of the compromise, and held that the claim as based on it was barred by limitation, the Court being of opinion that a note of hand, which, it was alleged, saved the operation of limitation, as it contained an acknowledgment of liability, was not genuine. Upon appeal the lower appellate Court, differing from the Court of first instance, held that the award was a valid document and could be enforced. It was also of opinion that the note of hand, on which the plaintiffs relied, was a genuine document. As the Court of first instance had not tried a portion of the first issue and also the second and third issues which related to the other questions arising in the suit, it remanded the case under section 562. In the view which the Court of first instance took of the first issue, it was unnecessary for it to try the other issues to which we have referred. 2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants, the defendants to the suit, that the suit had not been decided by the Court of first instance upon a preliminary point and that consequently the lower appellate Court acted beyond its jurisdiction in remanding the case to the Court under the provisions of section 562. 2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants, the defendants to the suit, that the suit had not been decided by the Court of first instance upon a preliminary point and that consequently the lower appellate Court acted beyond its jurisdiction in remanding the case to the Court under the provisions of section 562. This leads us to the question what is meant by the words “a preliminary point,” in section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure? The question is one not free from difficulty. If the matter had to be decided upon the provisions of section 562 as the section stood before its amendment by Act No. VII of 1888, there might have been considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants; but since the amendment of the section, and the omission from it of the words “so as to exclude any evidence of fact which appears to the appellate Court essential to the determination of the rights of the parties,” we must take the Legislature to have intended that a wider meaning should be attached to the Words than they Would ordinarily bear. The section has been considered by this Court and other High Courts, In Shcoamber Singh v. Lallu Singh : [1836] I.L.R., 9 All., 30, Mr. Justice Mahmood held as follows:— “The expression ‘preliminary point’ used in that section is not confined to such legal points Only as may be pleaded in bar of suit, but comprehends all such points as may have prevented the Court from disposing of the case on the merits whether such points are pure questions of law or pure questions of fact.” The same view was held by the Madras High Court in Ramachandra Joshi v. Hazi Kassim : [1892] I.L.R., 16 Mad., 207. 3. In that case Mr. 3. In that case Mr. Justice Best said, at page 212:— “I take it that : a suit is disposed of on a preliminary point within the meaning of section 562 when by reason of the decision on one or more of the issues recorded in the case there has been no necessity for the consideration of the other issues; and that if in such a case the appellate Court finds that the issues considered have been wrongly decided and the suit in consequence wrongly dismissed, and that a consideration of the other issues is necessary for a proper disposal of the suit, a remand is allowable.” We think that the interpretation so put upon the words “preliminary point” is at least a convenient one and was probably what the Legislature intended when it amended section 562. As the Court of first instance did not decide this case upon the merit in consequence of the conclusion at which it arrived on the question of the validity of the award, and also on the question of limitation, we think the Court below acted within its jurisdiction in remanding the case under section 562. 4. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs, which will include fees on the higher scale.