JUDGMENT Madeley, J. - This is a civil revision against an order of the Additional Civil Judge of Lucknow refusing to amend a decree. 2. The suit was dismissed with costs. The decree was prepared and Counsel's fee to the extent of one-fourth according to the valuation was entered in the decree. The applicant prayed for amendment by allowing full Counsel's fee. This prayer was refused. 3. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 3,550 as damages for breach of contract. It was instituted on the 9th August, 1940, by the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff relied on Exh. 21 as the document completing the contract and in that document the firm is described as a registered firm. Many pleas were taken in the written statement of the Railway but not the plea that the firm was not a registered firm. Six issues were framed and evidence was taken beginning from the 4th December, 1940. The 10th December, 1940, was fixed for arguments. In the meantime the defendant had begun to suspect from the evidence of P. W, 1, Lachhmi Narain, that the firm was not registered at the time when the suit was filed. Inquiries were therefore made and it was found that this suspicion was correct. On the 10th December, 1940, therefore the defendant filed an application that as it appeared that the plaintiff firm was not registered, the suit was not maintain- able u/s 69 (2) of the Partner- ship Act. The plaintiff wanted time to reply and the cause was adjourned to the 18th January, 1941, on payment of Rs. 50 as special costs. On that date they raised two further issues 7 (A) and 7 (B). These issues were tried as preliminary issues and the case was dismissed on the basis of the decisions. Other issues were not tried. 4. It was because the case was decided on these preliminary issues that the decree-writer allowed only l/4th of the pleader's legal fee. Rule 289 VI of the Oudh Civil Rules as amended on the 14th March, 1939, provides that where suits or appeals are decided ex-parte or on confession of judgment or on a preliminary point, l/4th of the fees payable in the case of suits or appeals decided on the merits after contest shall be allowed. 5. The applicant's learned Counsel has . raised two contentions in the present case. 5. The applicant's learned Counsel has . raised two contentions in the present case. The first is that since issues had been framed and evidence taken and these so- called preliminary issues were not raised till very late in the case, therefore he is entitled to full legal fee as if the. suit had been decided after contest on the merits. This is however, is not the correct view. In original suit No. 3 of 1934 tried on the original side- of this Court, issues were framed and 44 witnesses examined. Finally the suit was decided on the ground , of res judicata, the Hon'ble Judge remarking. It is a matter of regret that I was not asked earlier to decide this preliminary issue. 6. One-fourth of the legal fee was allowed in the decree. After this decree an application was presented before a Bench of this Court, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 1936. On the 30th August, 1938, the point was decided by Mr. Justice Ziaul Hasan and Mr. Justice Yorke, and it was held that the decree had allowed the pro- per amount of legal fee. They based their decision on a previous decision. It was probably on account of these decisions that the amendment was made in rule 289 VI. 7. The second point argued by applicant's learned Counsel is that the issues framed were not pure issues of law but were issues of mixed fact and law. Counsel bases his argument on Debendra Narain Roy Vs. Jogendra Narain Deb and Others, AIR 1933 Cal 559 and Sowkabai Pandharinath v. Tukojirao Holkar AIR 1932 Bom 138. The latter decision is the clearest on the point which he wishes to make. The headnote is. Under O. 14, there is no power in the Court to frame something in the nature of a preliminary issue of fact. Where the Court has framed all the issues which properly arise, the Judge may come to the conclusion /that one or more of those issues should be tried first and independently, because the evidence on such issue or issues can be conveniently separated from the rest of the evidence and-the finding on that issue or those issues may render the trial of other issues unnecessary." 8. It cannot, in my opinion, be said that the issues framed by the trial Court involved any question of fact in the proper sense of the word or required the taking of any evidence. In a sense, of course, even an issue relating to res judicata involves the investigation of some facts and the production of some evidence. The-previous judgment or a copy thereof has to be produced and gone into. In the present case the first of the two preliminary issues raised the question whether, the firm being unregistered at the time when the suit was filed, the suit was not maintainable. Plaintiff admitted that the firm was unregistered at that time. The remaining question was merely one of law. The second preliminary issue was raised by the plaintiff who claimed that he sued as a dissolved partnership. But he had already admitted that at the time of filing the suit the firm was still in existence. Moreover even without that admission the fact was obvious from the form of the plaint. The firm sued under its trade name. If it had been dissolved, it is clear that it could Mt have sued at all being no person in law. The late partners could have sued in their individual capacity, but this they did not pretend to do. I therefore hold that the two preliminary issues were in essence merely issues of law. They were in the true sense preliminary points. The legal fee has therefore been rightly taxed under rule 289 VI, Oudh Civil Rules. I dismiss this application with costs.