JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, M. - Damodar Prasad Tiwari and other had filed four suits under Sections 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act against Beni Prasad Tewari and others. The four suits were consolidation into one by the trial court. On June 18, 1971, the trial court formulated the following three issues:- "1. Is the plaintiff-co-sirdar of the land in suit? 2. Is the suit barred by section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act? 3. Is the defendant No. 1 sole Sirdar of the land is suit?" This suits proceeded and evidence on the issues were recorded. On September 5, 1972, Beni Prasad moved an application to the effect that the court should decide issue No. 2 first before proceeding to decide other issues. The trial court rejected this application. Beni Prasad Tewari has come up in revision against this order of the trial court. The learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, who had heard these revisions, has recommended that the revisions have no force and deserve to be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone though the record. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the issue is the suit barred by section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, is an issue of law only and under Order 14, Rules 2, Civil Procedure Code this issue should have been decided first and the trial court has acted illegally in not deciding this issue first. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has referred to 3 decisions. The first is Dhanpat Rai v. Prem Sunder Bhargava A.I.R. 1962 Alld. 572 in which it has been observed that when a preliminary point is raised in a case which effects the very entertainment or maintainability of a suit, it is no always proper to pass an order of hearing the preliminary point at the time of final hearing of the suit. Such a point should ordinarily be decided at an early stage. The second decision is Shambhoo Dayal v. Basudeo Sahai A.I.R. 1970 Alld. 525. This decision is to the effect that an order setting aside an award amounts to a case decided. Such a point should ordinarily be decided at an early stage. The second decision is Shambhoo Dayal v. Basudeo Sahai A.I.R. 1970 Alld. 525. This decision is to the effect that an order setting aside an award amounts to a case decided. Such an order marks the termination of a stage of the suit, it precludes decision of the suit in accordance with the award and opens the controversy which would be set at rest if the award is not set aside. Therefore, an order setting aside an award decided a case within the meaning of section 115, Civil Procedure Code and is revisable under that section. The learned counsel has cited this decision to support the maintainability of the present revisions. The third decision cited is Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1785 in which a learned Bench of the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law." 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that the revision is not maintainable and has referred to Jangali v. Ghafoor 1969 R.D. 228 in which a learned Member of this court has held as follows- "Under Order XIV, Rule 2 of the code of the Civil Procedure where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and if the court is o opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first and for that purpose may if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined. This provision leaves discretion to the court to form and express an opinion as to whether the case can be disposed of on the issues of law alone. This provision leaves discretion to the court to form and express an opinion as to whether the case can be disposed of on the issues of law alone. Under Order XIV, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code the court could not be compelled to decide issue No. 4 if the court was of opinion that this issue could not be treated as a preliminary issue and could not be decided without taking the full evidence of the parties. The trial court did not act illegally or with any substantial irregularity in passing the impugned order as a result of which all the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties decided together after the parties have full opportunity to produce their evidence in support of their respective claims." 5. Provisions of Rule 2, Order XIV are clear enough and admit of no doubt. If a suit can be decided by a decision on an issue of law only, such an issue must be decided as a preliminary issue. It is, however, to be considered whether in the present case issue No. 2 as an issue of law only whether it was a mixed issue of law and fact. A mixed issue of law and fact need not be decided as a preliminary issue. The learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to show that the issue in question was a pure issue of law. On the contrary, the issue is a mixed issue of law and fact. Further, it is significant to note that the application of Damodar Prasad Tewari that the issue No. 2 should be decided as a preliminary issue was moved on September 5, 1972, i.e. to say nearly 1 year and 3 months after the date of the framing of the issues. Such an application should have been moved at the time of the framing of the issues itself. Meanwhile, the evidence of the plaintiff had been completed and the trial court has recorded the statements of as many as 6 witnesses of the plaintiff. Evidence of two witnesses of the defendant had also been recorded. Both sides has also filed voluminous documentary evidence. Thus, on September 5, 1972, there was no stage of deciding the issue No. 2 as a preliminary issue and the trial court rightly held that the issue shall be decided along with other issues. Evidence of two witnesses of the defendant had also been recorded. Both sides has also filed voluminous documentary evidence. Thus, on September 5, 1972, there was no stage of deciding the issue No. 2 as a preliminary issue and the trial court rightly held that the issue shall be decided along with other issues. The trial court has not committed any error, illegality or irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. It is of course correct that, as the learned Additional Commissioner has observed the order of the trial is succinct and pithy. In accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1976 A.I.R. 1985, the trial court should have recorded a proper order giving reasons. The observations of the Supreme Court should be brought to the notice of the subordinate courts because too often we find that they are not borne in mind. However, we find that no injustice is being caused to any party by the impugned order of the trial court. On the other hand, if this court interferes in revision with the order of the trial court in the present case it will lead to unnecessary delay and harassment to the parties in the parties in the case and instead of promoting justice would promote injustice. The omission of the trial court to record proper and detailed reasons is not a ground which would justify this court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. No injustice has been caused by the impugned order. On the other hand, the suits filed before the trial court have now come to a final stage and if the trial court records judgment which is either erroneous or illegal, the aggrieved party will have its remedy in appeal or revision. 5. The result is that agreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby dismiss the revisions. 6. This order governs the connected reference Nos. 345 to 348 of 1972-73, Faizabad.