JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been filed by the defendants against the order dated 25th July, 1987 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1. Jaipur City in civil suit No. 13 of 1978 filed by the opposite party against the petitioners. The said suit relates to the Digamber Jain Mandir situate on Station Road, Jaipur. It has been registered as a public trust under the provisions of the Rajastnan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Act) and by order dated 27th, 1974 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jaipur Region, Jaipur, entries in relation to the said Trust have been made in the Register of Public Trusts wherein certain properties have been shown as belonging to the Trust. The said order of the Asstt. Commissioner was affirmed, in appeal, by the Devasthan Commissioner, Rajasthan by his order dated 29th March, 1976. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan, and the Commissioner, Devasthan and the entries made in the Register of Public Trusts in pursuance of these orders, the non-petitioner has filed suit referred to above. The said suit was originally filed under Section 22 of the Act. The suit has been contested by the petitioners and on the basis of the pleadings the issues were framed by the trial court on 4th May, 1979. Issue No. 12 as framed by the said order was as under: vk;koknh U;k;ky; us bl vej dh ?kks"k.kk djkus dk vf/kdkj gS fd lEifRr fooknxzLr fdlh VsLV dh lEifRr ugh gS vkSj tks bUnztkr nsoLFkku foHkkx esa nQk 21 ds rgr dj fn;s x;s gS oks cutnhd oknh oysner csvlj gS vkSj oknh mudks fujLr djkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA It appears that the suit was dismissed on 17th August, 1981 under Order 17 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code but on appeal, this Court by its judjement, dated 17th April, 1987 set aside the said order dated 17th August, 1981 and remanded the suit for trial. After the matter had been remanded under the order dated 17-4-1987 the petitioners moved an application before the trial court for treating Issue No. 12 as a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code and for deciding the same before other issues on the ground that the said issue raises pure questions of law and no evidence is required for deciding the said issue. On the said application the trial court passed an order dated 23rd May, 1987 whereby it accepted the application of the petitioners and directed that arguments would be heard on issue No. 12 which would be treated as a preliminary issue. Thereafter the non-petitioner got the plaint amended so as to seek a declaration that the suit property which has been entered as property belonging to the Trust in the Register of Public Trusts under Section 21 of the Act, is the personal property of the non-petitioner. The matter was considered by the trial court on 15th July, 1987 and the court observed that Issue No. 12 was a composite issue wherein the plaintiffs had also sought a declaration that the property in dispute is not the property of the Trust and for the purpose of deciding that part of the issue it was necessary to record evidence and that it would not be advisable to decide only a part of the issue. The learned Addl. District Judge, therefore, held that arguments could not be heard on issue No. 12 as directed under order dated 23rd May, 1987. In the said order the Addl. District Judge observed that if after filing of the amended written statement issues are framed and if any such issue can be decided without recording any evidence, then the matter would be considered at that stage. After passing of the aforesaid order dated 15th July, 1987 the issues were reframed on the basis of the amended plaint and the amended written statement on 22nd July, 1987. In the amended issues, Issue No. 12 is as under: vk;k ifCyd V~LV ,DV dh /kkjk 21 ds vuqlkj ds x;h izfrf"V;ks dks fujLr djuks gsrq okn oknh nQk 22 ds rgr ukdkfct is'k jQr gS] D;ksfd oknh fooknxzLr lEifRr dks viuh futh lEaifRr crkrk gSA Thereafter the petitioners moved another application whereby they prayed that Issue No. 12, in the issues as re-framed, may be heard and decided as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule, 2 CPC. The said application was rejected by the Addl. District Judge by his order dated 25th July, 1987. In the said order the Addl. The said application was rejected by the Addl. District Judge by his order dated 25th July, 1987. In the said order the Addl. District Judge has observed that by deciding Issue No. 12 the entire suit could not be disposed of and that in case where the decision on issue of law does not fully dispose of the suit then the said issue must be decided along with other issues. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 25th July, 1987, the petitioners have filed this revision. 2. Shri B L. Luhadia, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has urged that the Addl. District Judge has misdirected himself in passing the order dated 25th July, 1987 and in rejecting the application of the petitioners on the view that an issue of law should not be decided as a preliminary issue if the decision on that issue does not lead to disposal of the entire suit. The submission of Shri Luhadia is that under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, it is permissible for the Court to decide an issue of law as a preliminary issue if as a result of the said decision the whole case or any part thereof may be disposed of and since in the present case, the decision on issue No. 12 would result in disposing of a major part of the case set up by the non-petitioners, this was a fit case in which the Addl. District Judge should have decided Issue No. 12 as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. Shri Luhadia has also urged that if issue No. 12 is not decided at this stage and is decided along with other issues, the trial would be unnecessarily prolonged and evidence would be adduced in relation to matters in respect of which the suit is not maintainable under Section 22 of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Abdul Karim Khan and Ors. v. Municipal Committee, Raipur AIR 1965 SC 1774 , and by this Court in Mehta Charity Trust Pali and Ors. v. Gulam Rasool and Ors. v. Municipal Committee, Raipur AIR 1965 SC 1774 , and by this Court in Mehta Charity Trust Pali and Ors. v. Gulam Rasool and Ors. 1986 RLR 695 In this regard Shri Luhadia has pointed out that this Court in its order dated 17th April, 1987 has directed for expeditious trial of the suit and it has been urged by Shri Luhadia that if Issue No. 12 is decided as a preliminary issue, evidence in respect of many matters raised by the non-petitioner in the suit would become unnecessary. 3. Shri G.S. Bapna, the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner, on the other hand, has urged that the order passed by the Addl. District Judge on 25th July, 1987 does not call for interference in revision in as much as under Order 14 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code as amended, a discretion has been conferred on the trial court in the matter of treating an issue of law as a preliminary issue and it cannot be said that in the present case the Addl. District Judge has not exercised the said discretion properly. Shri Bapna has also submitted that intention of the legislature in amending Order 14 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code is to discourage piecemeal trial of the suit and that if Issue No. 12 is allowed to be decided as a preliminary issue, it would lead to piecemeal trial and in the event of decision on Issue No. 12 being set aside in appeal, the matter will have to be reconsidered and evidence will have to be adduced and this would further prolong the trial. Shri Bapna has also submitted that the petitioners would not suffer any irreparable injury and that the order passed by the Addl. District Judge does not occasion failure of justice and, therefore in view of the proviso to Section 115 Civil Procedure Code the revision is not maintainable. 4. Rule 2 of Order 14 Civil Procedure Code has been substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and it reads as under: "2. District Judge does not occasion failure of justice and, therefore in view of the proviso to Section 115 Civil Procedure Code the revision is not maintainable. 4. Rule 2 of Order 14 Civil Procedure Code has been substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and it reads as under: "2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues: (1) Not with standing that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2), pronounce judjement 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 as 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. 5. Prior to the aforesaid amendment the Said provision was to the following effect: "2. Issue of law and of facts-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. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that as a result of the amendment introduced in Order 14 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code by the Amendment Act of 1976 Parliament has laid down that normally the Court should pronounce judjement on all issues and piecemeal trial of a suit should be avoided. In Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code a discretion has been conferred on the Court to treat any issue of law as a preliminary issue. In Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code a discretion has been conferred on the Court to treat any issue of law as a preliminary issue. In this regard a departure has been made from the earlier provisions and the word shall" which was used in the earlier provision and which indicated that the Court was obliged to treat and decide an issue of law as a preliminary issue, has been replaced by the word "may" in the amended provision which indicates that it is in the discretion of the Court to try an issue of law as a preliminary issue. Sub-rule(2) also further curtails the power of the Court in the matter of deciding an issue of law as a preliminary issue by restricting it to only those issues which relate to the jurisdiction of the Court or to a bar to the suit created by a law for the time being in force. This would show that the intention of legislature in introducing the amendment in Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, is to restrict the power of the Court in the matter of deciding an issue of law as a preliminary issue. 6. In the present case, it is necessary to consider as to whether the Addl. District Judge has committed an error in the exercise of his jurisdiction in holding that Issue No. 12 could not be decided as a preliminary issue and should be tried along with other issues. The only reason that has been given by the Addl. District Judge in the order dated 25th July, 1987 for taking this view is that the decision on issue No. 12 would not result in the final disposal of the suit and that in cases where the decision on an issue does not lead to the disposal of the suit, the said issue should be decided at the final stage along with other issue. In my view, the Addl. District Judge was not right in taking the said view because under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 Civil Procedure Code the Court has been empowered to try an issue of law as a preliminary issue if it is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof can be disposed of on issue of law only. District Judge was not right in taking the said view because under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 Civil Procedure Code the Court has been empowered to try an issue of law as a preliminary issue if it is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof can be disposed of on issue of law only. This means that even if a part of the case can be disposed of by a decision on an issue of law, then the same can be tried as a preliminary issue and it is not necessary that the decision on that issue should lead to the disposal of the entire case. In holding that issue of law can be tried as a preliminary issue only, the said decision leads to the decision of the entire case, the Addl. District Judge has misdirected himself with regard to the powers conferred on him under Order 14 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code and in that sense he has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law. 7. I may now examine as to whether the controversy raised in Issue No. 12 falls within the ambit of Order 14 Rule 2(2) Civil Procedure Code which requires that issue must relate to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. Issue No. 12 relates to maintainability of the suit by the non-petitioner under Section 22 of the Act with regard to the cancellation of the entries made under Section 21 of the Act. In Section 73 of the Act it is prescribed that save as expressly provided in the Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Act to be decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under the Act or in respect of which decision or order of such officer or authority has been made final or conclusive. Under the said section jurisdiction of civil court has been expressly taken away in respect of a question which is by or under the Act to be decided or dealt with by a officer or authority under the Act or in respect of which the decision or order of such a officer or authority has been final or conclusive. Under the said section jurisdiction of civil court has been expressly taken away in respect of a question which is by or under the Act to be decided or dealt with by a officer or authority under the Act or in respect of which the decision or order of such a officer or authority has been final or conclusive. The said bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court is relaxed only in relation to matters for which express provision has been made in the Act. Section 22 of the Act permits the filing of a suit in relation to matters referred to therein. This means that except for the matters covered by Section 22 of the Act the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court, as contained in Section 73 would be applicable. Issue No. 12 relates to the maintainability of the suit under Section 22 of the Act which means that if the said issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and it is held that a suit is not maintainable under Section 22 of the Act, the bar of jurisdiction contained in Section 73 of the Act would be attracted and therefore, it can be said that the Issue No. 12 relates to the jurisdiction of the court and also relates to a bar to the suit created by a law namely the Act, which is for the time being in force. It must, therefore, be held that issue No. 12 relates to matters in respect of which the court is entitled to decide an issue as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. 8. As regards the submission of Shri Bapna based on the proviso to Section 115 Civil Procedure Code it may be stated that the plaint of the suit filed by the non petitioner shows that the major part of the suit relates to the validity of the entries made in the Register maintained under Section 21 of the Act as well as the order dated 27th July, 1974 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, Devasthan, Jaipur Region and the order dated 29th March, 1976 passed by the Devasthan Commissioner, Rajasthan. In case Issue No. 12 is decided in favour of the petitioners the inquiry in respect of these matters would be barred and this would result in a substantial part of the suit of the non-petitioner being disposed of. Commissioner, Devasthan, Jaipur Region and the order dated 29th March, 1976 passed by the Devasthan Commissioner, Rajasthan. In case Issue No. 12 is decided in favour of the petitioners the inquiry in respect of these matters would be barred and this would result in a substantial part of the suit of the non-petitioner being disposed of. It would also avoid the litigation being protracted because evidence which may otherwise have to be produced in respect of matters covered by the said issue would be avoided and the petitioners would be saved the expense of contesting the suit in respect of matters in relation to which the suit is not maintainable. In my view, therefore, the order dated 25th July, 1987 passed by the Addl. District Judge occasions a failure of justice. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision is allowed and the order dated 25th July, 1987 passed by the Addl. District Judge is set aside and the Addl. District Judge is directed to decide Issue No. 12 as a preliminary issue. The record of the suit may be sent immediately to the trial court. No order as to costs.Revision allowed. *******