JUDGMENT Dr. R. R. Misra, J. 1. Plaintiff-opposite party had filed Suit No. 263 of 1986 in the court of Civil Judge, Saharanpur claiming a decree for damages against the defendants, including the present applicant in revision in this court, who is the District Supply Officer. The ground for relief in the plaint was that the defendants had acted maliciously and collusively and had misused their office as public servants. The defendants filed a written-statement. Consequently five issues were framed by the trial court. The present applicant in revision moved an application before the trial court for trial of issues nos. 2 to 5 as preliminary issues. By the impugned order the trial court has rejected the said application of the defendant-applicant on the ground that having regard to the pleadings of the parties it will be expedient and proper to try all the issues together as trial of the said issues involve questions of law as well as fact. Thus on the aforesaid finding the trial court has refused to exercise discretion vested in it in regard to the trial of the said issues as preliminary issues. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that in view of the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure it was incumbent on the trial court to have proceeded to decide the said issues as preliminary issues and allowed the application of the applicant. To appreciate the said contention it will be necessary to take into account the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 as they stood before the amendment by CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 1-2-1977 and thereafter. Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stood before the said amendment was as follows : "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 the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined." 3. After the aforesaid amendment in the year 1976 Order XIV Rule 2 as amended is as follows : "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 provisions 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." From a reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the issue as to jurisdiction may be an issue of law or of fact or a mixed issue. Prior to the amendment of the said provisions in the year 1976, the legislature directed the Court to frame issues of law arising in a case and it was incumbent upon the Court to try those issues first for the disposal of the case or any part thereof. In the latter part of the aforesaid unamended provisions it was also provided that pending the disposal of the said issue of law even the settlement of issues of fact have to be postponed until after the issues of law have been determined. On this state of law, the legislature intervened and by the said amendment made in the year 1976 the position was changed entirely. Under the amended provision under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 it is obligatory on the court to pronounce judgment on all issues notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue. On this state of law, the legislature intervened and by the said amendment made in the year 1976 the position was changed entirely. Under the amended provision under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 it is obligatory on the court to pronounce judgment on all issues notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue. The only exception provided by the legislature is that a case where issues both of law and 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 which relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or creates a bar to the suit in law, that issue may be treated first. Thus the legislative mandate is that the issue of jurisdiction depending upon question of fact and/or mixed questions of law and fact must be decided on merits at one and the same time along with other issues. Direction to try preliminary issue of law in the two situations mentioned above is to be exercised only when it is so clear that the decision will decide the suit finally once and for all without recording of any evidence. 4. From a perusal of the case law on the point, I find that the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as they stood before 1976 were interpreted by the Supreme Court of India in the leading case of Major S. S. Khanna v. Brig. E. J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 as under. At page 503, it was observed by the court as follows :- "The jurisdiction to try issues of law, apart from the issues of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of law alone, but the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and facts as preliminary issues. Normally all the issues in a suit should be tried by the court : not to do so, especially when the decision on the issues even of law depends upon the decision of the issues of fact, would result in a lop-sided trial of the suit." Even after the aforesaid amendment of 1976, in the case of Fakhre Alam v. Bhagwan Singh, 1978 AU 376 = 1978 AWC (SOC) 22, after relying on the aforesaid amended provisions, this Court has held that where issues of fact and law are involved, the Judgment has got to be pronounced on these issues along with other issues simultaneously. The same view has been taken by this court yet in another case of Reena Srivastava v. Vijai Ram Srivastava, 1985 AWC 97 wherein it has been held that where the issue of jurisdiction of court involves determination of mixed questions of law and fact requiring recording of evidence, the same cannot be tried as preliminary issue. To the same effect is also a decision of the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Ramdayal Umraomal v. M/s. Pannalal Jagannathji, AIR 1979 MP 153 . 5. Having scrutinised the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the amendment and after the amendment, I find that there is yet another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration. On the aforesaid provisions as amended, I find that there is nothing in sub-rule (2) which makes it obligatory for the court to try such issue first in all the cases. If, therefore, the trial court is of the opinion that in any particular case it would be more expedient to try all the issues together and if it refused to try and decide any issue of law even on the points referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 as a preliminary issue before taking up other issues, it commits no error touching its jurisdiction. This view of mine also find support from a decision in the case of Dhirendranath Chandra v. Apurba Krishna Chandra, AIR 1979 Patna 34. 6. Now, in the present case I find that in the impugned order the trial court has recorded a categorical finding that for the trial of issues nos. This view of mine also find support from a decision in the case of Dhirendranath Chandra v. Apurba Krishna Chandra, AIR 1979 Patna 34. 6. Now, in the present case I find that in the impugned order the trial court has recorded a categorical finding that for the trial of issues nos. 2 to 5 consideration of evidence will be necessary and, therefore, it has held that it will be proper to decide the issues along with other issues and pronounce judgment on all the issues together. That apart, there is still one more aspect of the case. In the case of M/s. Estrela Batteries Limited v. M/s. Modi Industries Limited, AIR 1976 All. 201 , Hon'ble N. D. Ojha, J. (as he then was) observed that in respect of issue not raising pure question of law but involving mixed question of law and fact, the finding of the trial court that such issue cannot be decided as preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 is not vitiated by any error of law within the meaning of section 115 and cannot be interfered with in revision. 7. I respectfully agree with the aforesaid view taken by Hon'ble N. D. Ojha, J. and hold that on the finding recorded in this case the impugned order is not vitiated by any error contemplated by the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Further, in my opinion the impugned order does not also amount to a 'case decided' within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Explanation appended thereto by the State Amendment (U.P.). The said Explanation reads as follows :- "In this section, the expression 'any case which has been decided' includes any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding." From the facts as stated above, it is clear that under the impugned order the trial court has not decided any issue and as such, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be held to be a 'case decided' within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. There is still one more reason for rejecting the present revision. 9. There is still one more reason for rejecting the present revision. Under the Second Proviso to section 115 of the State Amendment (U.P.) of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is a specific bar to this effect that this Court shall not, under section 1 ?5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings; or if the order is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. Admittedly in the present case by the impugned order no issue has been decided by the trial court. On the findings recorded by the trial court, all that has been said is that all the issues in the case shall be decided together. In my opinion, this order does not, on the facts of the present case, meet the requirements of the aforesaid Second Proviso either. 10. Thus, in my opinion, in the net result the revision fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Stay orders granted and extended by this court on various dates are hereby vacated. Revision dismissed.