J. U. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Court of the Second Joint Civil Judge (S. D.) at Rajkot in Special Civil Suit No. 87 of 1971 below application Ex. 151 ordering to raise issue in the case as to res judicata and directing to hear the same as preliminary issue the petitioner has filed this Revision Application challenging the said order. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner who is the original plain- tiff instituted a civil suit being Special Civil Suit No. 87 of 1971 for specific performance of the agreement to sell in the Second Joint Civil Judge Senior Division at Rajkot. The respondents filed their Written Statement at Ex. 9. During the pendency of the suit original defendant No. 2 filed an application at Ex. 66 dated 22-2-1976 and contended inter alia to dismiss the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the Con- tract but in Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 1974 filed by the present plaintiff against the Bank of Baroda and the present defendants Nos. 2 and 3 the Court has held that the said Satakhat is false bogus and got up and that the plaintiff had not paid the consideration of Rs. 50 0 nor the possession was handed over to him and therefore the matter directly and substantially in issue in this suit has been directly and substantially in issue in that former suit between the same parties litigating under the same title and the competent Court had finally decided that issue and therefore this suit also be dismissed. While deciding that application the then Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Rajkot held that the suit is not tenable as it is barred by res judicata. The Court instead of dismissing the suit directed the plaintiff i. e. the present petitioner to furnish information whether she had preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 1974. Thereafter on 18-4-1983 defendant No. 2 filed another application at Ex. 151 inter alio pointing out that the plaintiff had preferred an appeal from the judgment and decree in Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 1974 in the High Court of Gujarat and the same is dismissed and therefore this suit also be dismissed. Thereafter on 18-4-1983 defendant No. 2 filed another application at Ex. 151 inter alio pointing out that the plaintiff had preferred an appeal from the judgment and decree in Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 1974 in the High Court of Gujarat and the same is dismissed and therefore this suit also be dismissed. The said appli- cation was opposed on behalf of the plaintiff. After hearing both the parties the learned Second Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Rajkot passed an order on 7-7-1983 that issue on the point of res judicata be added and it be decided as a preliminary issue. The issue ordered to be framed is as under: Whether the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata ? It was also ordered that the parties to bear their own costs. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged as follows: (1) That without there being any plea in the Written Statement and without there being any application for amendment of the Written Statement the Lower Court erred in directing to frame the present issue as aforesaid; and (2) That issue as to res judicata cannot be heard or tried as a prelimi- nary issue as it is not a pure question of law only. ( 4 ) SO far as the first point is concerned I do not agree with the submi- ssion made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Order 14 Rule 3 C. P. C. reads as follows:3 The Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials: (a) allegations made on oath by the parties or by any persons present on their behalf or made by the pleaders of such parties; (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit; (c) the contents of documents produced by either party. Thus Order 14 Rule 3 C. P. C. mentions three data from which the Court is required to frame issues. They are: (a) allegations made on oath by parties; (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interroga- tories and (c) the contents of documents produced. If anyone of the three data discloses the material for raising an issue to which the parties join the Court is bound to raise issue even on the basis of one or more of the three foundations. If anyone of the three data discloses the material for raising an issue to which the parties join the Court is bound to raise issue even on the basis of one or more of the three foundations. If the pleadings are silent but if the contents of the documents produced by the parties clearly reveal a point on which the parties join issue the Court is bound to raise the issue on basis of the contents of the docu- ments and this is the purpose behind the enacting of Order 14 Rule 3 of the Code. I therefore hold that there was no error in framing of the issue by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Rajkot. ( 5 ) SO far as the second point is concerned viz. that issue as to res judicata cannot be heard or tried as a preliminary issue as it is not a pure question of law it is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Order 14 Rule 2 reads as under:2 (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue the Court shall subject to the provissons 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. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel urged that after the amendment of the aforesaid Rule in 1976 it is only the issue as to the jurisdiction of the suit or the issue regarding a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force can be tried as a preliminary issue. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel urged that after the amendment of the aforesaid Rule in 1976 it is only the issue as to the jurisdiction of the suit or the issue regarding a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force can be tried as a preliminary issue. He urged that therefore the question of the present suit being barred by the principles of res judicata cannot be decided as a preliminary issue because questions of law and fact are involved in this issue and this issue will not be covered by the provisions of Rule 2 of Order 14 C. P. C. to be tried as a preliminary issue. It will be seen that the new Rule 2 consists of two parts. The first part is contained in sub-rule (1) which lays down as follows: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) deals with a case 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. In a case answering the above precondition the Court is authorised to try that issue first if it 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 Therefore the new sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 puts a fur- ther restriction on the Court that an issue of law though it might be dispos- ing of the suit or any part thereof the same shall not be tried as a preliminary issue unless it involves the jurisdiction of the Court or bar to the maintaina- bility of the suit created by any law in force. Thus after the amendment of the rule it is not permissible for a Court to take up an issue of law as a preli- minary issue if the same does not come within the purview of the substituted rule. A reading of the unamended provisions would indicate that the con- sideration of an issue and its disposal as a preliminary one are now permitted in limited cases. A reading of the unamended provisions would indicate that the con- sideration of an issue and its disposal as a preliminary one are now permitted in limited cases. Under the unamended provision the categorisation was only between issues of law and of fact and it was mandatory for the Court to try the issues of law at the first instance while under the amended provision there is a mandate to the Court that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue the Court has to pronounce judgment on all the issues. The only exception to this has been provided in sub-rule (2) which confers a discretion on the Court to try an issue first if the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only. The exercise of this discretion is circumscribed by and limited to the contingency that the issue to be so tried must relate to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law in force. Thus it would not be correct to assume that any question touching upon the jurisdiction of a Court would automatically become an issue of law as this question may as well depend on factual aspects. If no investigation is necessary and it is not necessary to go into controversial facts the question relating to jurisdiction may be treatedd and decided as an issue of law only under the amended provision. If on the other hand it would be necessary to decide a factual controversy before arriving at a conclusion with regard to the question of jurisdiction of the Court such a question can- not be treated to be a pure question of law. When the institution of the suit is incompetent under the law or when the Court finds that it has no jurisdic- tion and to come to such a conclusion no investigation is necessary and no evidence is necessary to be recorded the Court has jurisdiction to decide the case or any part thereof on an issue of law only. ( 7 ) THIS being the position I confirm the order passed by the trial Court so far as the framing of the issue viz. Whether the suit is barred by the prin- ciples of res judicata is concerned. ( 7 ) THIS being the position I confirm the order passed by the trial Court so far as the framing of the issue viz. Whether the suit is barred by the prin- ciples of res judicata is concerned. However I send back the matter to the Trial Court to decide whether the said issue can be tried and decided as a preliminary issue in light of the discussion made above in this matter. As the suit is old one the trial Court will give top priority and will dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. ( 8 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case the Civil Revision Application is partly allowed directing the trial Court to decide whether the issue framed by it should be treated as a preliminary issue in light of the ob- servations made hereinabove. ( 9 ) RULE is made absolute to that extent with no order as to costs. (GDB) Order accordingly. .