JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. 1. This revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code') is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.5.1983, passed, by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gonda, striking out the defence of the defendant' revisionist under Orderl5, Rule 5 of the Code. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gonda. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended, that jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case was challenged and this question was raised before the learned Additional District. Judge, who has also referred that this plea of jurisdiction was raised and urged before him. Learned counsel urged that this learned Additional District Judge instead of recording any finding on the aforesaid question of jurisdiction, ordered thatthe defence of the defendantrevisionist be struck off. Learned counsel contended that without first determining the question of jurisdiction, the court could not proceed to determine the question whether the defence of the defendantrevisionist could be struck off under order 15, Rule 5, of the Code or not. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the question of jurisdiction will now be gone into by the trial court while passing the final judgment in the case and as such the order on the said question cannot be said to be a 'case decided'. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent and I find much substance in argument of learned counsel for the revisionist. 3. It is well settled that the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage (See Abdul Jalil Khan v. Gulab Singh and others, AIR (sic) All 392). Since the question of jurisdiction c was raised and was urged before the learned Additional District Judge, it was necessary for him to have recorded a finding on the question regarding jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining the suit and proceeding with it. Since the question of jurisdiction c was raised and was urged before the learned Additional District Judge, it was necessary for him to have recorded a finding on the question regarding jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining the suit and proceeding with it. It is well settled that where there are issues of both law and fact in the same suit, the Court must decide whether the case can be disposed of on the issue or issues of law only in the first place, and if it is of opinion that the case may be disposed of on these issues only, it has no option, but must decide those issues first. The question of jurisdiction is a vital preliminary issue which got to be decided by the Court first, before proceeding with the suit. This Court in Udmi am v. Ghasi Ram (AIR 1933 All. 753) has held that where the Court did not proceed to decide the question and did not express any opinion as to whether the case could be disposed of on that issue alone or not, it acted irregularly and the order would be taken to be a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 and as such open to revision. The revision in the aforesaid case was allowed and the subordinate judge was directed to decide the issue of jurisdiction before proceedingto hear the suit on its merit. 4. In the present case, the learned Additional District Judge has without recording any finding on the question whether the court Ms got the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case or not, proceeded to decide the question whether the defence is or is not liable to be struck off under order 15 Rule 5 of the Code by merely observing that the said provisions would be attracted both in a suit which is of the nature of small cause court and also which would be triable as regular suit. In my opinion, learned Additional District Judge committed a manifest legal error and has failed to exercise jurisdiction properly, in not deciding the question of jurisdiction before passing the impugned order.. A Court must enquire whether in law it has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted before it. In my opinion, learned Additional District Judge committed a manifest legal error and has failed to exercise jurisdiction properly, in not deciding the question of jurisdiction before passing the impugned order.. A Court must enquire whether in law it has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted before it. It is well settled that a defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial or whether it is in respect of the subjectmatter of action, strikes at the very root of the authority to pass any binding and executable order or decree in the case, and as such a defect of want of jurisdiction cannot be cured even by consent or waiver by the parties. The Court has, therefore, to decide the question of jurisdiction first before harping upon to decide the case on merits. Since the vital question of jurisdiction has got to be decided first before proceeding to decide the suit on merits and as such the application under order 15 Rule 5 of the Code moved by the plaintiff could not be disposed of on merits by the learned Additional District Judge without first determining the question of jurisdiction. 'Thus, the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, dated 13.5.1983, deserves to be setaside. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist then urged that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge striking out the defence of the defendantrevisionist is also bad in law and facts of the case and he has made his submissions on the point. Learned counsel for the plaintiffopposite party also submitted his argument in reply of the same. But since I am directing the learned Additional District Judge to first decide the question of jurisdiction and thereupon, if he holds that e court has jurisdiction to proceed with the case, decide the aforesaid application under order 15 Rule 5 of the Code on merits afresh, I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties on the question whether the defence of the defendantrevisionist deserves to be struck off or not. 6. 6. In the result, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed and the order dated 13.5.1983 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gonda, is hereby setaside and he is directed to decide the question of jurisdiction first and thereafter, if he holds that the court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case, to proceed to decide the application under order 15 Rule 5 of the Code on merits. In the circumstances of the Case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. (Revision allowed)