JUDGMENT 1. THIS Rule is directed against an order dated June 5, 1978, passed by the learned Munsif, Suri in Title Suit no, 47 of 1976. By the aforesaid impugned order Issue No. 4 was taken up as a preliminary issue and the said issue was about the non-joinder and/or mis-joinder of parties. It was held by the learned Judge that the heirs of one Digbasana Dasi are necessary parties to the suit and in the presence of those necessary parties the title and possession of the plaintiff should be decided, and the plaintiff was directed to take steps for imp leading the said necessary parties, namely, the heirs and legal representatives of Digbasana Dasi. 2. AGAINST the said adjudication made by the learned Munsif, this court was moved in revision and the instant Rule was issued. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, the provision of Order 14 Rule 2 has undergone a change and under the amended provision of Order 14 Rule 2 sub-rule (2) the said issue could not have been decided by the learned Munsif as preliminary issue. Mr. Dutta further contended that even before the amendment, the said issue could not have been decided on the footing that the said issue was an issue involving pure question of law because the adjudication involved in the said issue required consideration of various facts. For this contention Mr. Dutta referred to the decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of S. S. Khanna vs. F. J. Dillon, reported in A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 497. It was held by the Supreme Court on interpreting Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (before amendment in 1976) that under Order 14 Rule 2 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 by deciding one 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 issues. Mr. Mr. Dutta also contended that after the amendment of the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, further limitations have been imposed and an issue involving question of law should be tried as preliminary issue only after the conditions indicated in sub-rule (2) of order 14 Rule 2 are fulfilled. It has been provided under the said sub-rule (2) of Order 14 Rule 2 that issue of law should be tried first if the issue relates to (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for time being in force. Mr. Dutta thereafter referred to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made in the case of Hardwari Lal vs. Pohkar Mai reported in A.I.R. 1978 Punjab and Haryana High Court at page 230. In the said case the scope and import of the amendment of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in particular sub-rule (2), were taken into consideration by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it was held that after the amendment of Order 14 Rule 2 the scope of adjudication of some or more of the issues as preliminary issues for being tried on preferential basis has been considerably tapered. After the amendment the use of the words an issue of law only in the first part of the sub-rule (2) has to be given its due meaning and import in the context. Accordingly, Mr. Dutta contended that the impugned order was illegal and without jurisdiction and should be set aside, Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, firstly contended that one of the heirs of the said Digbasana was already on record and as such on the principle of doctrine of representation of the estate, the other heirs need not be impleaded and the suit can not fail in the absence of other heirs. In my view, the aforesaid contention of mr. Ray cannot be accepted. It is true that in appropriate cases where some of the heirs and legal representatives have been substituted with due diligence and one or two heirs had been left out, it should be held that the estate of the deceased was duly represented by the legal representatives of the deceased who were already brought on record after due diligence. It is true that in appropriate cases where some of the heirs and legal representatives have been substituted with due diligence and one or two heirs had been left out, it should be held that the estate of the deceased was duly represented by the legal representatives of the deceased who were already brought on record after due diligence. In the instant case, the issue as to the defect of parties was adjudicated by the Court below and it was held that all the heirs and legal representatives are necessary parties. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that as one or two heirs of such deceased party is or are on the record, the other necessary parties are, not required to be brought on record. 3. MR. Roy next referred to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and contended that for mere misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, the suit should not be defeated and as such there is no occasion for the party being aggrieved and no interference in revision is called for. This contention of Mr. Roy cannot also be accepted because the proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 clearly lays down that nothing in the said Rule shall apply to misjoinder of all the necessary parties, and as the court had adjudicated in the instant case that all the heirs of the said Digbasana are necessary parties, non-joinder of such necessary parties must be held to be fatal in the suit. Mr. Roy lastly contended that even assuming that under the amended provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of the C.P. Code, the issue as to the non-joinder of parties could not have been decided as a preliminary issue, such adjudication made by the court below on the said preliminary issue cannot be challenged under section 115 of the C. P. Code as amended by the Amending Act of 1976. Mr. Mr. Roy in this connection refers to the proviso to Section 115 of the C.P.C. which is set out hereunder : "provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where (a)the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding or (b)the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any court subordinate thereon. Explanation: in this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding". 4. MR. Roy contends that the expression 'or' at the end of clause (a) of the said proviso, must be understood in a conjunctive sense and unless and until the conditions laid down in both the clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso are fulfilled, interference in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is not called for. I am, however, unable to accept the said contention of Mr. Roy and it does not appear to me that the expression 'or' appearing at the end of clause (a) of the proviso to Section 115 has been used in a conjunctive sense. It is true that "or" is sometimes used as '"and" but the said expression "or" has been used in disjunctive sense in the proviso to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Reference may be made in this connection to the report of the Joint Committee of Parliament which considered the amendment of Civil Procedure Code. The relevant observation of the Joint Committee was to the following effect : The Committee, however, feel that in addition to the restrictions contained in Section 115, an overall restriction on the scope of applications for revision against interlocutory orders should be imposed. The relevant observation of the Joint Committee was to the following effect : The Committee, however, feel that in addition to the restrictions contained in Section 115, an overall restriction on the scope of applications for revision against interlocutory orders should be imposed. Having regard to the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its Fourteenth and Twenty Seventh Reports, the Committee recommended that Section 115 of the Code should be retained subject to the modification that no revision shall lie against an interlocutory order unless either of the following conditions is satisfied, namely : "(i) That if the orders were made in favour of the applicant it would finally dispose of the suit or other proceeding or (ii) That the order, if allowed to stand is likely to occasion a failure of justice or cause an irreparable injury". It is thus evident that the legislature used the said expression "or" in a disjunctive sense. In the instant case not only the party has suffered prejudice by the aforesaid adjudication, but such adjudication was made without jurisdiction in view of the amended provision of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Civil procedure Code and in my view, an interference under section 115 of the Civil Procedure, Code is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly the Rule is made absolute but there will be no order as to cost. The learned Munsif is directed to decide the issue about the non-joinder of parties along with other issues on consideration of the evidences and materials on records. As the suit is pending for a long time, it is desirable that the suit should be disposed of as early as practicable. Rule made absolute, no costs.