NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. The respondent is represented by his Advocate Sri R. V. Vasanth Kumar. The respondent has appeared in this matter, though it has not been admitted, because of the notice issued to him pursuant to the order dated 5-12-1986. ( 2 ) SRI R. V. Vasanth Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted the t in this revision petition a question of law arises and therefore it may be admitted and disposed of on merits today itself. Sri Suresh S. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has no objection to this request. Hence, this C. R. P. is admitted and arguments are heard. ( 3 ) THE facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed O. S. No. 1521 of 1983 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, praying for a decree in a sum of Rs. 42,210-46 with interest at 21. 5% against the petitioners-defendants. Petitioners-defendenfs appeared and filed a written statement. One of the contentions of the petitioners-defendants was that the court at Bangalote has no jurisdiction, as no part of the contract alleged by the plaintiff-respondent had taken place within the teritorial jurisdiction of the city Civil Court, Bsngalore. Issues were framed. Issue No. 2 pertains to this contention. ( 4 ) ON 18-7-1986 the defendants filed I. A. 2 requesting the Court to try issue No. 2 as a Preliminary Issue. The learned City Civil Judge has dismissed i. A. 2 by his order dated 5-9-1986. This revision is directed against the said order dated 5-9-1986. ( 5 ) ORDER 14 Rule 2 of the C. P. C as amended by Act No. 104/76 has split up rules 2, as it existed, into two parts as sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), which read as follows : -"2. The 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 subrule (2) pronounce judgment on all issues. The 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 subrule (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 a 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 if it 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 of that issue. " ( 6 ) A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it crystal clear that there is mandate on the Courts to pronounce judgment on all issues, though a case was disposed of on a preliminary issue, but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2 ). ( 7 ) SUB-RULE (2) deals with two aspects ; one is regarding jurisdiction of the Court and the other is bar of the suit by any law for the time being in force. I am not concerned with the second aspect in this case. ( 8 ) BAR of jurisdiction of the Court in this case is based on the fact alleged by the defendants in regard to the taking place of the contract. What is clearly alleged is that no part of the contract had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in question. A finding on this question of fact has to be recorded in the first instance to decide the question of law as to whether Court would have, in law, jurisdiction to decide the suit. Sub-rule (2) does not, as is plain to my mind, provide any scope for recording of evidence to fecilitate the court to further record a finding of fact though that may lead to recording of a finding on the preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction if framed. Sub-rule (2) does not, as is plain to my mind, provide any scope for recording of evidence to fecilitate the court to further record a finding of fact though that may lead to recording of a finding on the preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction if framed. ( 9 ) IN M/s. Ramdayal Umaraomai v m/s. Pannalal Jagannathji, (A I R. 1978 m P. 16), a Division Bench of the madhya Pradesh High Court took the view that since the question of jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter if it is not decided at the earliest opportunity, it may cause unnecessary expenses and harassment to the party, that it is the requirement of the law that the question of jurisdiction must be decided first, as a preliminary issue and that even some evidence is to be recorded regarding the question of fact that also can be disposed of. This reasoning is the exact argument of Sri Suresh S. Joshi, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioners-defendants. He has vehemently pressed this point in his arguments. But, i wonder whether the finding of fact so recorded would remain binding at least on the defendants, in case the Court concluded that it had no jurisdiction and when the suit is filed in the Court which has jurisdiction. ( 10 ) THE said decision of the Division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court was reversed by the Full Bench of the very same Court in A. I. R. 1979 m. P. 153. The Full Bench held categorically that an issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court can be tried as a preliminary issue only if it can be disposed of without recording any evidence and that if such issue is a mixed question of law and fact requiring recording of evidence, it cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. ( 11 ) THIS Court in Karagupikar v kulkarni. (1975 (1) Kar. L. J. SNRD 125 page 33, has also laid down the very same view by holding that an issue of law and fact on which evidence is to be recorded cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. I respectfully agree with the views stated above. ( 12 ) IN view of the foregoing, I see no substance in this revision and dismiss the same. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .