N.M. KASLIWAL, J. — Both these revisions are disposed of by one single order as identical question of law is involved in both these cases. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Mohammad Saeed and Mohammad Shafiq who are real brothers were married to Shagufta Yashmin and Shabana Tabassum who are also real sisters. Mohammad Saeed filed suit No. 122/1979 and Mohammad Shafiq filed civil suit No 121/1979 for restitution of conjugal rights and injunction in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli. In both the cases an objection was raised that the suit was not maintainable in the Court at Karauli. The trial court had framed six issues out of which issue No. 3 was with regard to the jurisdiction of the Karauli Court. The trial court considered the said issue as a preliminary issue and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff in support of his case examined two witnesses and the defendant examined six witnesses. The learned trial court then heard the arguments on issue No 3 and held that both the parties were living at Jaipur and as such returned the suit for presentation to proper court. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the plan tiff filed appeals in both the suits. Learned Additional District Judge, Karauli by his order dated May 15, 1987 allowed the appeals and directed the trial court to decide all the issues along with the final decision of the suit. Learned Additional District Judge took the view that issue No.3 was an issue which involved a mixed question of fact and law and as such the same could not have been decided by the trial court as a preliminary issue. Learned Additional District Judge did not decide the appeal on merits but simply held that the trial court ought not to have decided the issue as a preliminary issue and thus allowed the appeal and remanded the case for deciding all the issues along with the final decision of the suit. 3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge in both the appeals the above mentioned two revisions have been filed by the defendants in both the cases. I have heard Mr. Naqvi on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Rathore on behalf of the plaintiffs. It was contended by Mr. 3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge in both the appeals the above mentioned two revisions have been filed by the defendants in both the cases. I have heard Mr. Naqvi on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Rathore on behalf of the plaintiffs. It was contended by Mr. Naq\i that the learned trial court had framed the issue No. 3 which was regarding the jurisdiction of the Karauli Court and parties had led evidence on the said issue and thereafter, the said issue was decided on merits against the plaintiff, It was submitted that in these circumstances, when the trial court had already considered issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue and parties had also led evidence, the trial court was correct in deciding the said issue on merits. Mr. Naqvi also submitted that the view taken by the trial court that learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Karauli had no jurisdiction to try the suit was perfectly correct and justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. On the other hand Mr. Rathore submitted that after the amendment in Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. in 1976. the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue. It was submitted that issue No. 3 involved disputed question of fact and when there was dispute between the parties, no issue could have been decided as a preliminary issue. It was thus submitted that the learned Additional District Judge was right in taking the view that issue No. 3 could not have decided as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. and it could have been decided along with the other issues only at the time of final disposal of the suit. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on (1) Bhupinder Kamal Vs. The New Delhi Municipal Committee, (2) Chetan Textiles, a registered partnership firm Bombay Vs. M/s Jethabhai Hirji & Co. a partnership firm, (3) Usha Sales Ltd. Vs. Malcoim Gones (4), Daljit Singh Vs. Joginder Singh Sekbon (5), Smt. Ram Kali Vs. Sohan Lal, (6), Madhabananda Ray Vs M/s Spencer and Company Ltd, (7) M/s Ramdayal Umraomal. Vs. M/s Pennalal Jagannatbji, and (8) Cheni Ram Vs. Shanti Devi . I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. Malcoim Gones (4), Daljit Singh Vs. Joginder Singh Sekbon (5), Smt. Ram Kali Vs. Sohan Lal, (6), Madhabananda Ray Vs M/s Spencer and Company Ltd, (7) M/s Ramdayal Umraomal. Vs. M/s Pennalal Jagannatbji, and (8) Cheni Ram Vs. Shanti Devi . I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. Issue No.3 was framed in the following manner : ^^vk;k nkok gkth dh lquokbZ dk v[R;kj bl dksVZ dks ugha gS\** 5. Thus, issue No 3 was framed on the basis of objection raised by the defendants that both the parties were living at Jaipur and the marriage was also performed at Jaipur. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the resident of Karauli and he wanted to establish his right of restitution of conjugal rights at Karauli. In the face of the pleadings of the parties above issue No. 3 was framed which is clearly related to the jurisdiction of the court. It may be important to note that suit was filed in 1979 and no objection was raised from the side of the plaintiff that issue No. 3 should not be decided as a preliminary issue and ought to be decided along with the other issue. Learned trial court treated issue No.3 as a preliminary issue and the parties were first directed to lead evidence in respect of the aforesaid issue. Both the parties led evidence and after nearly seven years the aforesaid issue was decided on merits by order dated August 1, 1986 by the trial court taking the view that the suit was not triable in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Karauli and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for filing in the competent court. In these circumstances when the issue No. 3 was decided on merits and it was held against the plaintiff, there was no justification on the part of learned Additional District Judge to hold that the above issue ought not to have been decided as a preliminary issue and should be decided alongwith the other issues. The authorities cited by Mr. Rathore are totally distinguishable and do not give any assistance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. The authorities cited by Mr. Rathore are totally distinguishable and do not give any assistance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. Apart from the above circumstances Section 21 C.P.C. clearly provides that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in. the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement. In the present case if the order of learned Additional District Judge is up-held, the result would be that the objection regarding jurisdiction will be totally negatived and futile exercise in as much as it would be of no practical effect if the trial is held by the court at Karauli on all the other issues and thereafter, the issues regarding jurisdiction is also decided. Apart from that as already mentioned above nearly nine years have already lapsed to the filing of the suit and the plaintiff himself joined issue No. 3 being tried as a preliminary issue by the trial court and did not raise any objection at that stage that it ought not to be decided as preliminary issue. 7. In the result, both these revisions are allowed, the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Karauli dated May 15, 1987 is set aside and the appeals in both the cases are remanded to the court of Additional District Judge Karauli with a direction to decide them on merits according to law. Parties shall bear their own costs in both the revisions. The parties are directed to appear in the court of Additional District Judge, Karauli, on September 19, 1988.