Short Note : 1. Appellant No. 1 Rao Nihalkaran instituted the suit on 29-3-1966 on the allegations that the respondent Trust did not intimate him of the result of the objections raised by him against the scheme and there had been discrimination against him as the lands belonging to others, which were also initially proposed to be acquired, had been released from the operation of the scheme and that they themselves had been allowed to develop their lands according to the sanctioned scheme. According to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant Trust could not do so without a fresh notification once the scheme was sanctioned by the State Government and that the scheme was not in conformity with section 38 of the M. P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960. The plaintiff, therefore, sought a relief of declaration to the effect that the suit land could not be taken possession of for the scheme and the entire proceedings were void. Held: It cannot be disputed that it is within the competence of the respondent Trust to frame a scheme and to modify the same, and the persons affected thereby who have raised objections, are certainly entitled to know from the Trust the result of their objections on the Principles of natural justice and equity otherwise inviting objections will have no meaning as the party raising objections will never get a chance to know on what grounds the objections were rejected or were dismissed 2. It was, therefore, necessary for the respondent Trust to intimate the objectors the result of their objections after due consideration. 3. It is desirable that whenever any question of deciding a preliminary issue arises, the trial Court should before deciding it, ascertain from the parties whether they want to lead any evidence on it and if the parties so desire should give them opportunity to lead evidence; but if they decline to lead any evidence it should be recorded so in the order-sheet and then only the Court should proceed to decide the preliminary issue after hearing arguments so that any party may not make any grievance before the appellate Court that it has been deprived of leading evidence though it was necessary. Case remanded. Appeal allowed.