JUDGMENT 1. - This is a defendant's miscellaneous appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated February 6, 1979, of the, gleamed District Judge, Jodhpur, under which the learned District Judge set aside the judgement and decree dated September 1, 1977 of the Additional Civil Judge Jodhpur. 2. The appellant was a defendant in Original Suit No. 26/75, filed by Manoharsingh, respondent No. 1 against him and others. The suit was filed with the allegations that the suit property described in para I of the plaint, had been sold by Naneshah to Ramkumar under a sale-deed dated June 20, 1954 and Since then Ramkumar was in possession of the suit property and on' part of it Naneshah along with his wife Smt. Hafiza was in possession as a tenant from Ramkumar. A dispute had arisen in between Naneshah and the tenants and Naneshah filed a suit against Mohanlal and Megraj for rent and eviction, which suit was dismissed and it was held that said Megraj and Mohanlal were the tenants of Ramkumar and part of Naneshah. The decision, darted May 28, 1959, of the trial court was upheld in the appellate court on October 28, 1960. Ramkumar also filed a suit for eviction against Naneshah, which was decreed oh January 30, 1961 by the trial court. In the, year 1964, on the application of Kaloosingh 'Mukhtiyar Aam' of Ramkumar, proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. were initiated in the court of City Magistrate, Jodhpur. In those proceedings No. 19/64, the City Magistrate on November 10, 1965, declared the possession of Ramkumar and the possession of the suit; land was taken, by Kaluram 'Mukhtiyar Aam' of Ramkumar on November 11, 1965, and Kaloosingh inducted the plaintiff as a tenant on behalf of Ramkumar in the suit property on Novermber 15, 1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-, The plaintiff thus, is a tenant of Ramkumar and Naneshah was never in possession of the suit property. The order dated November 10, 1965 of the City Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. was set aside by the High Court on a reference made to it by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision, filed before him. Because the plaintiff had been inducted as a tenant by Ramkumar through his 'Mukhtiyar Aam' Kaluram, he cannot be evicted under the order passed under Section 145, Cr. P.C. was set aside by the High Court on a reference made to it by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision, filed before him. Because the plaintiff had been inducted as a tenant by Ramkumar through his 'Mukhtiyar Aam' Kaluram, he cannot be evicted under the order passed under Section 145, Cr. P.C. and can only be evicted by due process of law. 3. The suit was contested on behalf of the appellant and it was stated in the written statement that at the time when the suit property was attached in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. by the City Magistrate, Naneshah and his tenants, namely, Chhaganlal, Mangilal, Longmal, Prabhulal, Hajurilal etc. were in possession. The S.H.O., Udaimandir, who was appointed as Receiver of the property by the City Magistrate, had taken possession of the suit property from Naneshah and his tenants. The High Court, by its judgment dated November 23, 1967, set aside the order of the City Magistrate declaring the possession of Ramkumar dropped the proceedings and ordered the S.H.O., police station Udaimandir that the possession of the suit property should be handed over to those persons from whose possession it was attached. Because it did not appear from memo of attachment of the subject dispute as to who was in possession of the suit property on the date of attachment, learned Judge of this Court while disposing of the reference on November 23, 1967, directed the City Magistrate to make an enquiry on the point as to who was in possession of the subject dispute on March 27, 1964, that is the date of attachment. The City Magistrate made an enquiry and submitted his report on July 15, 1968, that Naneshah and his aforesaid tenants were in possession of the suit property on the date of attachment. The learned Judge made a reference to the Division Bench & the Division Bench of this Court under the order dated April 20, 1971, accepted the enquiry report of the City Magistrate and ordered that possession should be delivered to Naneshah and his above named tenants. According to the appellant, Kaloosingh 'Mukhtiyar Aam' of Ramkumar was given possession of the suit property on November 11, 1965, the next day of the order of the City Magistrate, Jodhpur and he inducted the plaintiff as a tenant. According to the appellant, Kaloosingh 'Mukhtiyar Aam' of Ramkumar was given possession of the suit property on November 11, 1965, the next day of the order of the City Magistrate, Jodhpur and he inducted the plaintiff as a tenant. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff has no right to continue in possession of the suit property. Various other pleas were raised and learned trial court framed as many as five issues. No evidence to the parties was recorded and the trial court decided issue No. 5 only and holding that the plaintiff was bound by the order of the High Court in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, who allowed the same and remanded the case to the trial for decision on all the issues. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The contention of Mr. A.L. Chopra, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the learned District Judge has committed the same error which was committed by the trial court while remanding the case to the trial court for decision on all the issues in as much as it has itself decided issue No. 5. Mr. Calla, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the District Judge could have done so and while deciding the issue No. 5, he could have remanded the case to the trial court for decision on the issues. 5. It shall be presently seen that the learned District Judge has not acted properly in giving a finding on issue No. 5 while remanding the case to the trial court for decision on ether issues. As already stated earlier, as many as five issues were raised by the trial court. A look at the issues shows that none of the issues was purely a legal issue. None of the issues was such which related to the jurisdiction of the court or related to a bar of the suit created by any law in force. Under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C it is the duty of the Court to pronounce judgment on all the issues. None of the issues was such which related to the jurisdiction of the court or related to a bar of the suit created by any law in force. Under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C it is the duty of the Court to pronounce judgment on all the issues. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 14 Civil Procedure Code provides that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14, provides; that 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 there of 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. A look at issue No. 5 will show that it was firstly not an issue of law only and secondly, it was not an issue of law relating to the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the trial court as well as the District Judge could not have disposed of issue No. 5 only and it was necessary under the law to have decided all the issues framed in the suit. In Chhigaram and Ors. v. Nihal Singh and Ors. I.L.R (1963) 13 Raj. 54 , it was held that in appealable cases, the trial court and the court of first appeal must decide the case on all the issues and that principle must, as a Rule, be followed even though some of the issues arising in the case may be of law and may go to the root of the case, so that if an appeal the Court takes a different view on the issue of law it may not necessitate remand. In Chuni Ram and Anr. v. Shanti Devi and Ors., AIR 1980 Raj. 192 , the statement of Jaw as contained in Order 14, Rule 2 CPC, which has been referred in earlier part of this judgment has been stated. 6. In Chuni Ram and Anr. v. Shanti Devi and Ors., AIR 1980 Raj. 192 , the statement of Jaw as contained in Order 14, Rule 2 CPC, which has been referred in earlier part of this judgment has been stated. 6. A look at the judgment of the learned District Judge will show that in para 20 of his judgment, he has observed that trial court has not taken note of the amended provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C. under which the Court has to pronounce judgment on all the issues. He has observed that trial court did not grant any opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence on the issues. But, surprisingly the learned District Judge himself has given a finding on issue No. 5. He has observed that issue No. 5 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Thus, after observing that trial court did not take note of the amended provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C. the learned District Judge has himself fell into the same error and decided issue No. 5. While deciding issue No. 5, he set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the same for it for decision on the issue. I am of the opinion that the judgment of the learned District Judge so far as it has decided issue No. 5 only, cannot be upheld. But, so far as the remand order is concerned, it appears that the trial court must have decided all the issues after taking the evidence of the parties. 7. In the result, I partly allow this miscellaneous appeal and while upholding the order of remand hereby set aside the finding of the learned District Judge on issue No. 5 and direct that the trial court shall decide all issues afresh after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******