JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - This revision has been directed against the order dated September 5. 1986, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Bhawanipatna, refusing to decide issue Nos. 5 and 6 in the suit instituted by the opposite party against the Petitioners under Order 14, Rule 2 of the CPC (for short, ?the Code?). Although earlier the Court had passed an order to hear these issues concerning the maintain ability of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Court as preliminary issues as per the order passed on August 7. 1986 and in spite of the fact that both the parties had been heard on this question the learned Judge has been of the view that all the issues should be tried and decided together, as the issue Nos. 5 and 6 do not touch the jurisdiction of the Court. 2. The plaint bad been signed and instituted by the Divisional Forest Officer posted at Bhawanipatna in the district of Kalahandi in the name of the State of Orissa as the Plaintiff. The suit was one for a declaration that the lands in suit were reserved forest lands. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the Petitioners that in view of the decisions of the Revenue, Authorities and the view taken by this Court in O.J.C. No. 138 of 1986 that the suit lands are tenanted lands, the suit: instituted by the Divisional Forest Officer, who could not represent the State, without the authority of the State was barred under Order 27, Rule 1 of the Code and the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. At the hearing, the learned Additional Government Advocate has fairly submitted that in view of the assertion of the Plaintiff - opposite party himself when the learned Subordinate Judge took up the hearing on the preliminary questions that he had not been authorised by the State Government to institute the suit, the suit could not be maintained in law in view of Order 27, Rule 1 of the Code and that steps will be taken by the State for withdrawal of the suit. 4. As would appear from the record of the suit, Miscellaneous Case No. 152 of 1982-83 had been initiated by the competent Revenue Authorities and the father of the Petitioner No. 1 had been declared as an occupancy tenant of the suit plots. 4. As would appear from the record of the suit, Miscellaneous Case No. 152 of 1982-83 had been initiated by the competent Revenue Authorities and the father of the Petitioner No. 1 had been declared as an occupancy tenant of the suit plots. According to the Petitioners, the suit lands are tenanted lands. The Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement has taken the view that the lands are tenanted lands. In O.J.C. No. 138 of 1986, this Court has recorded that the lands were tenanted lands by its order dated April 30, 1986. In spite of all this, the Divisional Forest Officer instituted the suit without authority and it was barred by Jaw, as provided in Order 27, Rule 1 of the Code. 5. Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code reads: 2. 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 if) accordance with the decision on that issue. 6. As held by this Court in Madhabananda Ray and Anr. v. Spencer and Company Ltd. 1987 (XI) O.L.R. 39, a preliminary issue can be taken up under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code provided that no investigation is necessary and no evidence is to b~ recorded and the question can be decided as a point of law only. With regard to the application and scope of Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code, this Court has held therein: .... Under Order 1, Rule 2, CPC it is not permissible for the Court to decide an issue of fact as a preliminary issue. With regard to the application and scope of Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code, this Court has held therein: .... Under Order 1, Rule 2, CPC it is not permissible for the Court to decide an issue of fact as a preliminary issue. It, therefore, follows that where an issue of fact is necessary to be decided before an issue of law relating to jurisdiction comes up for consideration, such issue cannot be taken up as a preliminary issue within the meaning of Order 14, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code xx xx xx xx A reading of the unamended and the amended provisions would indicate that the consideration of an issue and its disposal as a preliminary one are now permitted in limited cases. While under the unamended provision, the categorisation was only between issue of law and of fact and it was mandatory for the Court to try the issues of law at the first instance, 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 treated 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 cannot be treated to be a pure question of law. 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 cannot 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 jurisdiction 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. Order 27, Rule 1 of the Code reads: 1. Suits by or against Government-In any suit by or against the Government the plaint or written statement shall be signed by such person as the Government may, by general or special order, appoint in this behalf and shall be verified by any person whom the Government may so appoint and who is acquainted with the facts of the case. 8. In the instant case, the plaint has been signed and the suit has been instituted by the Divisional Forest Officer without any authority. As on his own showing, the suit had been instituted without authority of the State Government, the institution of the suit was barred by law and consequently, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners must prevail and the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the suit was barred by law is well-founded. The learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the suit will be withdrawn by the State Government. 9. The learned Subordinate Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him for deciding the suit on a preliminary question. 10. In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, I would make no order as to the costs of this revision. Application shall be filed by the State for withdrawal of the suit within two weeks hence, failing which, the learned Subordinate Judge shall pass appropriate order in the light of the observations made above within a week thereafter. Both the parties are directed to appear in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge on August 14, 1987. Application shall be filed by the State for withdrawal of the suit within two weeks hence, failing which, the learned Subordinate Judge shall pass appropriate order in the light of the observations made above within a week thereafter. Both the parties are directed to appear in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge on August 14, 1987. The learned Counsel for both the sides shall inform their respective Parties about this date, No fresh notices need be issued by the learned subordinate Judge, The record be sent down forthwith. Final Result : Allowed