D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE point that arises for decision in this appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit in respect of defendant No. 4 should be tried as a preliminary issue. The question having been answered in the negative by the learned trial Judge, defendant No. 4 in the suit filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Orissa High Court challenging the said order of the learned trial Judge. ( 2 ) ORIGINAL Suit No. 1 of 1987 was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 claiming damages and special damages for publishing certain articles allegedly containing scandalous and libellous matters imputing the plaintiff's moral character. The suit was initially filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar which has transferred subsequently to this Court. It is now pending before Justice Shri K. P. Mohapatra for trial. In the suit one of the issues framed is to the effect "5. Has the Court jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of the defendant No. 4 ?". The appellant filed an application under Order 14, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'the Code') to try this issue as a preliminary issue. The petition was rejected by the learned trial Judge by order dated 24-5-88. The appellant seeks to assail this order in this appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Orissa High Court. ( 3 ) SINCE the point is simple and the contesting respondent, i. e. , the plaintiff appeared through counsel at the stage of admission, with consent of the counsel for both parties we heard the case for final disposal and it is being disposed of by this order. ( 4 ) ON perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial Judge considering the pleading of the parties in the light of the provisions in Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code came to hold that the plaint in the suit read as a whole will show that the offending articles of the Illustrated Weekly of India though printed and published in Bombay were circulated in Bhubaneswar and were read not only by the plaintiff but also by others. ; the offending articles contain the record of interview of defendant No. 4 by defendant No. 3; these are facts alleged in the plaint and as defendant No. 4 specifically challenges that the Weekly was not circulated in Bhubaneswar, the plaintiff may adduce oral and documentary evidence so as to prove that circulation was effected at Bhubaneswar in order to give jurisdiction to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar to entertain and decide the suit; therefore the issue of territorial jurisdiction is not an issue of law simpliciter; it raises a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be decided as a preliminary issue according to the provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code. On these findings the learned Judge directed that issue No. 5 if it would at all arise on the pleadings of the defendants, without being heard piecemeal should be decided with the other issues framed in the suit. Incidentally the learned Judge has also discussed at some length the legal position regarding the court or courts in which a suit claiming damages for defamation and libel can be filed under section 19 of the Code and the meaning and import of the tern `publication. ' ( 5 ) COMING to the core question in the case formulated earlier, the position is well settled that in a civil suit piecemeal trial of the issues should be avoided and attempt should be made to consider all the issues together as far as possible. This principle is embodied in sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code. Sub-rule (2) of the said Rule contains an exception 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. If the court is satisfied that a particular issue passes the tests laid down in sub-rule (2) and if the court thinks it fit it may postpone the settlement of the other issues until after those issues have been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. If the court is satisfied that a particular issue passes the tests laid down in sub-rule (2) and if the court thinks it fit it may postpone the settlement of the other issues until after those issues have been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. ( 6 ) ON reading the provisions of sub-rule (2), it is clear that the tests laid down are stringent and their compliance is to be strictly enforced, This is because, as noticed earlier, the provisions of sub-rule (2) is in the nature of exception to the general procedure provided in sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order 14. The courts have therefore viewed with reluctance any request to take up an issue as a preliminary issue. From the provisions in sub-rule (2) it is manifest that whether an issue is to be tried as a preliminary issue or not is at the discretion of the trial court and while exercising its discretion the court must be satisfied that the suit or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only and that issue relates to jurisdiction of the court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time Being in force. ( 7 ) IN the present case, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar as well as this Court have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of defendant No. 4 inasmuch as it is not expressly stated in the plaint that defendant. No. 4 was in any way responsible for publication of the allegedly defamatory articles in the magazine inside the State. As noticed earlier, the articles contained excerpts of an interview of defendant No. 4 by defendant No. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on two decisions of the Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR 1959 Raj 291 , Chiranjilal Agrawal v. Rikhabdass and AIR 1973 Raj 240 . Nemichand v. Khemraj in support of the above contention. As noticed earlier, the articles contained excerpts of an interview of defendant No. 4 by defendant No. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on two decisions of the Rajasthan High Court reported in AIR 1959 Raj 291 , Chiranjilal Agrawal v. Rikhabdass and AIR 1973 Raj 240 . Nemichand v. Khemraj in support of the above contention. We do not consider it necessary to go into in deep consideration of the merits of the issue since the point for determination is whether the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, can be said to involve pure questions of law or it involves mixed questions of law and facts. If it is the latter, it does satisfy the tests laid down under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code and the issue has to be considered along with other issues at the hearing of the suit. I may however observe that one of the two decided cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was considered by the Division Bench of this Court to which I was a party in A. M. O. No. 27 of 1989 (reported in AIR 1989 Orissa 265 ). Therein the order of the learned trial Judge allowing amendment of the plaint introducing certain averments regarding the cause of action for the suit and joint and several liability of the defendants was in challenge. The order of the learned trial Judge was upheld in the said appeal. In the impugned order the learned Judge has discussed the averments in the plaint, the meaning and import of the term `publication' and on consideration of the same has held that the issue is not one purely of law but it is a mixed one of law and facts since for determination of the question of jurisdiction evidence is necessary to be led. Whether defendant No. 4 had any role to play in publication of the interview said to be given by him to defendant No. 3 in. Whether defendant No. 4 had any role to play in publication of the interview said to be given by him to defendant No. 3 in. the Illustrated Weekly of India and whether the Weekly though published in Bombay was, circulated at Bhubaneswar thereby giving rise, to a cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit these are matters which involve enquiry into facts and the answer to the issues regarding jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit against, defendant No. 4 will depend on such enquiry. In such circumstances, in our view, the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the issue relating to jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit against defendant No. 4 should not be tried as a preliminary issue and the said issue should be tried along with other issues at the hearing of the suit. ( 8 ) IN view of the above finding, we do not consider it necessary to consider the question, what is the meaning and import of publication/circulation of defamatory materials which, in our view, relates to the merits of the question with which the court is not concerned at this stage. ( 9 ) ON the analysis in the foregoing paragraphs, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Parties will bear their respective costs of this appeal. ( 10 ) PASAYAT, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed. .