Judgment Shiyanugrah Narain, J. 1. On 29th January, 1977, Shri Saheb Lall Singh filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Danapur, for recovery of a sum of rs.2000 alleged to have been lent to the defendant, Shri Sukdeo Singh, on the basis of a hand note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 13th April, 1974 and for interest therein. 2. The defendant filed a written statement pleading, inter alia, that the handnote was a forged and fabricated document, that the defendant never took the loan alleged and that the suit was barred under the provisions of the Bihar Money Lenders Act. The defendant also pleaded that he was a scheduled debtor within the meaning of the expression as used in the bihar Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 10 of 1977) hereinafter called the Act, as he was an agriculturist having unirrigated land, less than 2 accres in area. thereafter, on 31st July, 1978, the defendant filed an application praying that the suit be dismissed as the defendant was a "scheduled debtor" within the meaning of the expression as used in the Act, and, therefore, the amount of the alleged loan would not be realised from him. The defendant also filed a Rin Mukti Praman Patra, dated 2nd January, 1978 granted by the Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms, Danapur, in Rin mukti Vad Sankhya 2511 of 1977 in proof of his plea of exemption from payment of the debt in question. 3. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the petition denying that the defendant was a "scheduled debtor" under the Act and alleged that he was the karta of a family possessing more than 10 acres of land. It was also asserted therein that the aforesaid Rin Mukti Praman Patra had been obtained by fraud and deceitful means and, therefore, was of no avail to the defendant. 4. After hereing the parties, the learned Munsif Danapur, in whose court the aforesaid Money Suit no.3 of 1977 was pending, by his order dated 14th June, 19/8 dismissed the petition of the defendant observing as follows : "in my opinion, Rin Mukti Patra has been issued and filed in court during the pendency of the suit. It is in the interest of justice to hear the plaintiff also in respect of this fact. It is in the interest of justice to hear the plaintiff also in respect of this fact. The aforesaid hearing appears to be proper at the time of hearing of the suit itself. In this circumstance, the aforesaid application filed by the defendant cannot be accepted and it is accordingly dismissed. " (This is English translation as the order is in Hindi ). 5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Munsif the defendant has come up before this Court in revision. 6. Section 3 of the Act, which came into force on 22nd January, 1977, so for suit is reievant, runs thus : "3. Discharge of debts of scheduled debtors and consequences of such discharge (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract or other instrument having force of law by virtue of any such law, and save as otherwise expressly provided by Sec.5 of this Act, every debt incurred by a scheduled debts before the commencement of this Act including the amount of interest, if any, payable on such debt shall be deemed to have been wholly discharged ; and (a) No such debt due from a scheduled debtor shall be recoverable from him or from any movable or immovable property belonging to him nor shall any such property be liable to him nor shall any such property be liable to be attached or sold or be proceeded against in any manner in the execution of any decree or order relating to such debt ; (b) No civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding against a scheduled debtor for the recovery of such debt or any portion thereof or any interest due thereon. " To understand the meaning of the expression "scheduled debtor", we have o notice the definition of the terms "scheduled debtor", "small farmer" and marginal farmer, which have been defined by clauses (b), (c) and (d) of section 2 of the Act thus : (b) "scheduled debtor" means a person who is a small farmer, or a marginal farmer, or a rural artisan, or an agricultural labourer, who is ordinarily resident in the State of Bihar. (c) "small farmer" means a farmer who owns land measuring not more than two acres of irrigated land of four acres of unirrigated land : provided that for a small farmer belonging to any of the scheduled tribes the maximum area of land to be owned and cultivated for the purposes of this Act will befour acres of irrigated or eight acres of unirrigated land. (d) "marginal farmer" means a farmer who owns land measuring not more than one acre of irrigated land or two acres of unirrigated land : provided that for a marginal farmer belonging to any of the scheduled tribes, the maximum area of land to be owned and cultivated for the purposes of this Act, will be two acres of irrigated land or four acres of unirrigated land. " The argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that as the defendant was a marginal farmer owning not more than two acres of unirrigated land and was admittely a resident of the State of Bihar, he was a "scheduled debtor" within the meaning of the expression as used in Sec.3 of the Act and, therefore, the present suit for recovery of the debt was barred by the provisions of Sec.3 (b) of the Act and, therefore, the court below should have held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and in proceeding to try the suit, he is usurping a jurisdiction not vested in him. I have already quoted the relevant part of the Act and it is manifest that the court below has not yet finally decided the objection as to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. What the court below has done is to refuse to decide the question as a preliminary issue and it directed that this question shall also be determined along with the other issues arising in the suit" 7. Mr. What the court below has done is to refuse to decide the question as a preliminary issue and it directed that this question shall also be determined along with the other issues arising in the suit" 7. Mr. Baban Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner, then contends that in view of the prvisions of Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code of civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") this objection as to -jurisdiction should have been tried as a preliminary issue, and in refusing to try it as a preliminary issue the learned Munsif has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction, Order XIV, Rule 2 as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 runs thus : "court to pronounce judgment on all issues - (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the court shall, subject to the provision of sub-rule (2) pronounce judgment on all issues ; (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit and the court is of opinion that the case or 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. " 8. It is thus manifest that sub-rule (1) or rule (2) of Order XIV of the Code requires the court to pronounce judgment on all the issues. Except in case coming within the provisions of sub-rule (2) thereof where the court is not so obliged and is vested with a discretion to try an issue of law only, if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the court or to a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. The discretion is to try first "an issue of law only". The discretion is to try first "an issue of law only". In my opinion, in the present case, the issue as to the jurisdiction of the court or as to the bar created by Sec.3 of the Act was not an issue of law only. The bar created by Sec.3 operated only if the defendant was a scheduled debtor. Now, whether the defendant was a "scheduled debtor or not depends upon the answer to the question whether he possessed only two acres of unirrigated land as alleged by him. If he possessed 10 acrers of land as alleged by the plaintiff, he was certainly not a scheduled debtor and would neither be a marginal farmer nor a small farmer. The question about the quantity of land owned or possessed by the defendant is essentially a question of fact. Therefore, the answer to the issue relating to the jurisdiction depended on the answer to a question of fact also and the issue was, therefore, not an issue of law only. It was a fixed issue of fact. Thus the court, did not even have a discretion what to speak of its being obliged to try that issue as a preliminary issue. 9. I am fortified in this conclusion by the law laid down by the supreme Court while interpreting the expression issue of law occurring in order XIV, Rule 2 of the Code as it stood prior to its amendment by 1976 amendment Act. In Major S. S. Khanna V/s. Sig. F. J. Dillon (AIR 1964 Supreme Court, 497) Shah, J. (as he then was) while interpreting order XIV Rule 2 of the Code, as it stood prior to 1976 amendment, observed : "the jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from the issues of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the Court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of law alone, but the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary isssues. Normally, all the issues in a suit should be tried by Court ; not to do so, especially when the decision on issues even of law depends upon the decision of issues of fact, would result in a lop-sided trial of the suit. Normally, all the issues in a suit should be tried by Court ; not to do so, especially when the decision on issues even of law depends upon the decision of issues of fact, would result in a lop-sided trial of the suit. " If the Court had no jurisdiction to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact or an issue of law depending upon the issus of fact as a preliminary issue under the old Code which did not contain a provision like sub-rule (1)of the present Order XIV, Rule 2 and provided that where it is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, it has certainly no jurisdiction to try such issues as a preliminary issue under the amended Code which says that it may try that issue first, and limits the discretion to try as preliminary issues to only such issues of law which relate to the jurisdiction of the court or to a legal bar to the suit. In my opinion, therefore, no error was committed by the court below in refusing to try the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. 10 The learned counsel for the petitioner laid great stress on the circumstance of issue of Rin Mukti Parman Patra. If the question whether the defendant is a "scheduled debtor is decided adversely to the defendant, then it may turn out that this Rin Mukti Parman Patra so far as it relates to the present suits is null and void. At any rate, my attention has not been drawn to any statutory provision which makes such a document conclusive evidence on the question of the person who has obtained such a certificate being a schedule debtor within the meaning of the Act. 11. In the result, the application is without merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 11. In the result, the application is without merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs. I may exphasise again what I have already stated that the present impugned order does not amount final determination of the issue as to jurisdiction against the defendant and that it is open to the defendant, after evidence is adduced, to satisfy the Court that he is a scheduled debtor and the suit is barred by the provisions of Sec.3 of the Act.