JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the order dated April 22, 1976 passed by Sri D.R. Bhattacharya, Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, in Revision No. 5 of 1975-76 preferred against the order dated October 30, 1975 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bindki, district Fatehpur in a case under Section 229-B, U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Opposite party No. 1, Srimati Badama Kunwar had filed a suit seeking declaration of her Sirdari rights in certain plots. The defendant-revisionist Narendra Bahadur Singh as well as the opposite party No. 2, State of U.P., contested the suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following seven issues: (1) Whether plaintiff is sole Sirdar of the holding in dispute? (2) Whether the plaintiff is alternatively co-Sirdar of the holding in dispute along with defendant No. 1? (3) Whether defendant No. 1 has been legally adopted by Rani Kunwar if so, its effect. (4) Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred under Sections 49 and 27 of the C.H. Act? (5)Whether defendant No. 1 is sole Sirdar of a holding in dispute? (6) Whether Rani Kunwar died heirless and the holding in dispute vests into Gaon Sabha? (7) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? Thereafter the revisionist moved an application that issue No. 4 should be decided as a preliminary issue. After hearing the counsel for both the parties, the trial court ordered that all the issues will be decided together. This order has been challenged in the present revision. 4. The grounds urged in the revision petition are, firstly, that the learned Additional Commissioner as well as the trial court erred in holding that all the issues framed in the instant suit would be decided together, and a point of jurisdiction was material and should have been decided first; secondly, that if the Court itself lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a suit, the entire proceeding and decision would become without jurisdiction and the order passed therein would be a nullity, and lastly that the learned Additional Commissioner has misinterpreted and misconstrued the law and has wrongly held that the suit had not yet been finally decided and the provision was not maintainable. 5. 5. First of all I may observe that the revision petition wrongly refers to the Additional Commissioner. There is no order passed by the Additional Commissioner in the present case. The impugned order has been passed by Sri D.R. Bhattacharya who was the Commissioner of the Allahabad Division. This is however, a minor mistake which may be ignored. 6. I may now come to the merits of the revision. For this purpose of it is necessary to refer to the relevant provision of the Civil Procedure Code, Order 14 of the Civil Procedure Code provides as follows: "XIV. (2) 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 of any party thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue which if tried would relate 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." It will be observed that under sub-rule (1) of the above rule it is mandatory for the Court to pronounce Judgment on all issues notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue. Sub-rule (2) merely permits that the Court may, if it is of the opinion that the case may be disposed of on an issue of law only, try that issue first. This provision shows that it is not mandatory but discretionary for the Court to try an issue as a preliminary issue. Further, before the Court can do it, it has to record the opinion that the case can be disposed of on an issue of law only. Where the Court does not record such an opinion or where the Court thinks that in the interest of justice all the issues should be decided together, the Court is not required to decide any issue as a preliminary issue. Where the Court does not record such an opinion or where the Court thinks that in the interest of justice all the issues should be decided together, the Court is not required to decide any issue as a preliminary issue. The learned Commissioner had rightly observed that 'while it may be open to the trial court to decide issues, singly or jointly, it will not be proper to give any direction to the subordinate Court to decide any one issue first before proceeding to decide the rest of the suit.' 7. Apart from that, the question whether a suit is barred under Sections 49 and 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is a mixed issue of law and fact. The questions of fact to be considered in the decision of this issue are: (a) Whether there has been consolidation operations in the village? (b) Whether there has been adjudication of rights regarding the land in dispute during the consolidation proceedings? and (c) if so, what is the adjudication of the consolidation authorities, or, if any writ petition has been filed, the decision of the High Court in the writ petition. It will be over-simplification to say that a plea that the suit is barred under Sections 49 and 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is a pure issue of law. In view of these circumstances, the trial court has rightly thought it fit to decide all the issues together, and no miscarriage of justice has been caused. Perhaps, the decision of all the issues would mean that the revisionist has to exercise greater patience in knowing the result of the suit, but the very fact that the revisionist has come up in revision which has taken nearly four years to be decided, shows that the revisionist does not lack patience. 8. There has been no failure or illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. The revision has no force on merits. The opposite party has also taken a plea that no revision lies against an interlocutory order. I need not consider this here, as the revision is to be dismissed in any case. 9. Agreeing with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner, I hereby dismiss the revision.