JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is plaintiffs revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure code against the order dated 12-9-1983 of the Third Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior In C. S. No. 25-A/1977, holding that issues No. 18 (a) and (b), as preliminary issues, require no evidence and can be disposed of without recording any evidence. ( 2. ) APPLICANT-PLAINTIFF Ashoks father Jagannath Prasad died in 1966. Ashok and defendants (non-applicants) 2,3,4,6,7 and 8 are brothers and defendant non-applicant No. 5 Rama Bai is their mother. ( 3. ) ASHOK filed the plaint of his suit first time in the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior on 19-6-1972 against 8 defendants. The plaint was returned for presentation to proper Court and was then presented in the Court of Second Civil judge, Class-I, Gwalior, on 14-2-1975 and was registered as C. S. No. 8-A/75. On 8-7-1977, the suit was transferred to the Court of Third Civil Judge Class-I, Gwalior and was renumbered as C. S. No. 25-A/1977. Plaintiff Ashok has prayed for a declaration that a consent decree for eviction and recovery of house rent passed by the Court of First Civil judge, Class-II, Gwalior in C. S. No. 150-A/1969 in favour of defendant No. 1 on 28-4-1972 does not bind him as one of the defendants in the previous suit and deserves to be set aside, and that defendant No. 1 Narsingh Rao, the decree-holder, be permanently restrained from executing the decree. ( 4. ) THE suit (C. S. No. 25-A/77) is based on the following averments: The previous suit (C. S. No. 150-A/69) was filed by the present defendant No. 1 Narsinghrao on 20-12-1968 describing present plaintiff Ashok - giving out his age to be 17 years - and the present defendants 6, 7 and 8 (Pappu, Zaman and Bablu) as minors. On Narsinghraos application present defendant No. 2 Kishan was appointed as the guardian adlitem of ashok. Kishan filed a written statement on behalf of Ashok, denying therein that the present plaintiff Ashok was a tenant of Narsinghrao. ( 5. ) HOWEVER, on 29-4-1972 plaintiff Ashoks mother (present defendant No. 5 rama Bai) filed an application through a counsel in the Court, mis-stating that Ashok was a minor and under her tutelage. She prayed for permission to effect a compromise of the suit on behalf of Ashok. ( 5. ) HOWEVER, on 29-4-1972 plaintiff Ashoks mother (present defendant No. 5 rama Bai) filed an application through a counsel in the Court, mis-stating that Ashok was a minor and under her tutelage. She prayed for permission to effect a compromise of the suit on behalf of Ashok. The Court granted permission on 29-4-1972 and a consent decree for eviction and arrears of house rent was accordingly passed in consequence of the fraud practised on the Court. The plaintiff came to know all this on 12-5-1972 when the warrant of delivery of possession was sought to be executed. ( 6. ) DEFENDANT (non-applicant) No. 1 Narsinghrao initially contested the aforementioned pleas on grounds which are now not material for the purposes of this revision. On 31-3-1981 defendant No. 9 was inducted in the suit under Order 22, rule 10, civil Procedure Code on the strength of a sale-deed dated 4-11-1980 executed by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 9 adopted the written statement of defendant No. 1. ( 7. ) BY making an amendment in the written statement on 6-4-1981 a plea was taken by defendant No. 9 that the plaintiffs father Jagannath Prasad was the original lessee of the suit house and on his death plaintiff Ashok and present defendants 2 to 8, as his heirs, became joint tenants of the leasehold and, as such, plaintiff Ashok and defendant No. 2 Kailash s/o Jagannath Prasad were not necessary parties to the previous suit. It was also urged that a decree, validly passed against any of the joint tenants is binding on the other joint tenants as well. On his part, the plaintiff amended the plaint denying that the contract of tenancy was between defendant 1 and Jagannath prasad. He averred that the contract was between defendant No. 1 and a partnership firm Boocha Shah Naraindas. He controverted the legal assumptions underlying the amended parts of the pleading of defendant No. 9. ( 8. ) THE aforementioned amendments led to the framing of the following additional issues on 20-4-1981 : ( 9. ) THEN the trial Court expressed an opinion that the issues were in the nature of preliminary issues and it directed them to be disposed of on hearing arguments of the parties. ( 10. ) THE plaintiffs contention before the trial Court was that these issues required evidence. ) THEN the trial Court expressed an opinion that the issues were in the nature of preliminary issues and it directed them to be disposed of on hearing arguments of the parties. ( 10. ) THE plaintiffs contention before the trial Court was that these issues required evidence. The trial Court then stated that it would first hear parties on the issues and then decide the objections whether the issues could be disposed of after recording evidence thereon. Aggrieved by that order plaintiff Ashok preferred C. R. No. 490/81 which was dismissed by this Court on 20-8-1981 with the following observations : "it was argued that since evidence shall be necessary to decide the issues, they cannot be treated and decided as preliminary issues in view of Order 14, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. This proposition seems to be correct. The trial Court, however, has not rejected this contention raised on behalf of the applicant. All that it has expressed is that it shall hear the parties on the issues and then shall decide if the issues cannot be decided without taking evidence. Thus, in fact, the trial Court has not so far taken any decision either way, what is said is that after hearing the parties it shall take a decision one way or the other. I am sure that if the trial Court decides that the issues No. 18 (a) and (b)cannot be decided without recording evidence, it shall not try them as preliminary issues and shall decide them alongwith other issues after full trial of the case. If, however, its decision is otherwise and it feels that no evidence on the issues is necessary and that the suit can be disposed of on the question of law raised, it may proceed to decide it as preliminary issues". ( 11. ) IT appears that the matter was agitated by the plaintiff in Civil Revision No. 781/82 which was dismissed summarily with the following remarks : "in Civil Revision No. 490/81 decided on 16-8-1981, it has already been pointed out that if the decision of preliminary issues involves recording of evidence, the Court will take steps as directed in that order. The trial Court had directed that after hearing the arguments it will be decided whether the preliminary issues could be disposed of only on arguments or on,taking evidence. The trial Court had directed that after hearing the arguments it will be decided whether the preliminary issues could be disposed of only on arguments or on,taking evidence. The trial Court has yet to decide this question after hearing the arguments. In this situation, there was no cause for any grievance. There is no merit in the revision. " ( 12. ) AGAIN, the plaintiff reagitated the matter in C. R. No. 1152 of 1982 against the fixation of the case for arguments on preliminary issues Nos. 18 (a) and 18 (b ). The revision was dismissed with the following observations : "4. As regards the second argument also I do not find any substance. The applicants apprehensions appear to be unfounded from the observations made in para 4 of the impugned order. That is not clear that the trial Court was proceeding to hear final arguments on merits of the preliminary issues. But in the face of the orders passed by this Court in the earlier two revisions, the trial Court has first to decide whether the said preliminary issues could be decided without recording the evidence or their decision is possible only after recording the evidence. It is expected that the trial court will proceed in accordance with the observations and directions made in the earlier orders of this Court. " ( 13. ) THEN me aforementioned matter was taken up and the trial Court passed an order on 12-9-1983 holding that no adduction of evidence is required for disposal of issues Nos. 18 (a) and (b ). The relevant portion of the order is being reproduced below: ( 14. ) AGGRIEVED by the aforementioned order the plaintiff has come up in revision. ( 15. ) I would do well at this stage to say something about the construction of observations of a superior Court because this Court thrice refused to interfere in the matter on the ground that the matter was premature, and also made some observations in the orders. ( 15. ) I would do well at this stage to say something about the construction of observations of a superior Court because this Court thrice refused to interfere in the matter on the ground that the matter was premature, and also made some observations in the orders. When a superior Court expects the lower Court to act in a matter in which the superior Court has given a guideline or has pin-pointed its attention, the lower Court is expected, to keep not only the general directions received from the superior Court, but also to see in them the implicit further requirement that the matter shall be dealt with in accordance with law applicable to the matter in hand. Thus, the orders passed in c. R. No. 490/81 and in C. R. No. 781/82 and in C. R. No. 1152/82, on which the trial court has relied on in the impugned order, will be read as a behest to the trial Court to act in respect of the matter in hand in accordance with the relevent provisions of the civil Procedure Code. Viewed from this angle, it is evident that the question whether the relevent provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have or have not been observed by the trial Court will also be a matter for examination before this Court. ( 16. ) HENCE, the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 (as inserted by the Civil Procedure code (Amendment) Act, 1976), leap to the eye because only issues Nos. 18 (a) and (b)were frameed at one time in the light of the amended pleading of the parties i. e. on the first occasion available for framing those issues. These provisions, on being juxtaposed with the unamended provisions, read as follows : ( 17. ) IT will have been seen that the common ingredients are as follows : 1) An issue of law arises. 2) The Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only. While before the amendment, a Court had to be satisfied on the aforementioned points, after the amendment it has also to be satisified on the following points viz. 2) The Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only. While before the amendment, a Court had to be satisfied on the aforementioned points, after the amendment it has also to be satisified on the following points viz. , - the issue of law sought to be selected must 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. The aforementioned requirements of sub-rule 3 of Rule 2 of Order IV have to be unreserved by complied with. The reason is as follows. Sub-rule (1), of Rule 2 of Order xiv states the general rule that though a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall pronounce judgment on all issues. A departure is permitted but the departure can be made only within the four corners of the provisions of Sub-rule (2), of Rule 2 of Order XIV. ( 18. ) HENCE, the observations of this Court in C. R. No. 490/81, C. R. No. 781/82 and C. R. No, 1152/82 (on which the lower Court has leaned for its view that the High court has already decided that the issues were preliminary ones) will have to be read as directions to the trial Court to proceed in the matter in accordance with Order XIV, rule 2 (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Code because that is the relevant and applicable law on the point open before the trial Court. ( 19. ) IF so, it will also have to be seen whether the trial Courts order shows whether the Court says that the issues Nos. 18 (a) and (b) were issues of law only and whether the issues relate to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force and whether the court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues in question. It is evident that unless all these in gradients are articulated, in a speaking order, there can be no compliance of the provisions of Order XIV, Rule 2 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 20. ) I will now proceed to examine the trial Courts order. ( 21. It is evident that unless all these in gradients are articulated, in a speaking order, there can be no compliance of the provisions of Order XIV, Rule 2 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 20. ) I will now proceed to examine the trial Courts order. ( 21. ) THE trial Court thinks that the order dated 4-5-1983 in Civil Revision No. 1152/82 has already decided that the issues were preliminary issues. Now, in none of the orders passed by this Court in the three revisions this Court held that issues Nos. 18 (a)and (b) were rightly held to be preliminary issues. In fact, the matter was not at all adjudicated upon in this Court. ( 22. ) NOW, as is apparent from the conspectus of the pleading of the parties pertaining to the issues Nos. 18 (a) and (b) - as detailed at paragraph 7 of this order -the parties did join issue on the point who were the lessees under the contract of tenancy. Hence, the dispute on this fact has to be resolved before the issues Nos. 18 (a)and (b) can be disposed of. It is apparent that issue No. 18 (a) wrongly assumed that the parties admitted that jagannath was sole lessee. It is, therefore, clear that the learned trial Judge miscomprehended the pleading in concluding that no question of fact-material to the issues Nos. 18 (a) and (b) - arises. ( 23. ) THE question of fact, posited above, has to be decided on evidence, and without a finding thereon, issues 18 (a) and (b)jcannot be decided. It is not open to the trial Court to hear and dispose of those Issues on arguments only. This is so, because in s. S. Khanna vs. F. J. Dillon ( AIR 1964 SC 497 ), it was observed at paragraph 18 as follows: ". . . . . . . the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues. Normally all the issues in a suit should be tried by the Court; not to do so, especially when the decision of issues of fact, would result in a lop-sided trial of the suit". ( 24. . . the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues. Normally all the issues in a suit should be tried by the Court; not to do so, especially when the decision of issues of fact, would result in a lop-sided trial of the suit". ( 24. ) IT is, therefore, clear that the learned trial Judge erroneously assumed jurisdiction to hear and decide issues 18 (a) and (b) as preliminary issues on arguments only without proposing to decide on evidence who was the lessee. ( 25. ) MOREOVER, the trial Courts order does not show that the issues related to jurisdiction or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force and that in the Courts opinion the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the findings on the issues in question. Viewed thus, the trial Court assumed jurisdiction when it had none under Order 14, Rule 2 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code to hear and determine issues 18 (a) and (b) thereunder. ( 26. ) IT is evident that a trial and determination of issues 18 (a) and (b) as preliminary issues and also without recording any evidence will cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff. ( 27. ) I, therefore, allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. The trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, in the matter of trial in advertence to the following observations. Additional issues be framed on the amended pleading of the parties referred to at paragraph 7 of this order on the fact who were original parties to the contract of tenancy. Then issue No. 18 (a) be amended so as to make it in form consequential upon proof of the fact that Jagannath was the sole original lessee. Then the trial Court shall try issues nos. 18 (a) and (b) alongwith all issues in accordance with Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 28. ) THERE shall be no order as to costs. Counsels fees Rs. 50/ -. ( 29. ) THE parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 6-3-1985. Petition allowed.