Judgment :- 1. This civil revision is directed against an order of the court below dismissing the application of the petitioner to try the additional issue whether the suit filed by the petitioner is premature as on the date of the filing of the suit. 2. The facts which are necessary can be briefly stated as follows;— The respondent filed a suit in the year 1977 in O.S. 505 of 1977 before the district munsif, Coimbatore, for a declaration that be is entitled to the suit property and for recovery of possession and costs. The said suit is based on the settlement deed, dated 10-6-1932. The said suit is resisted by the revision petitioner herein in the originally filed written statement and number of issues were framed and in the year 1979, he filed an additional written statement in which it is stated that the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue since as admitted in the plaint as per the settlement deed after the death of Murugiah Gounder the property should devolve on Murugiah Gounders heirs. Murugiah Gounder died in 1946 and his heir Unnamalai Amma alias Unnamalai is still alive. Plaintiff is not the next heir entitled to the property after the lifetime of Murugiah Gounder or of the first defendant and absolutely has no right to file a suit. When the suit was pending in the year 1988 he filed the present application I.A. No. 189 of 1988 under O. 14, R. 2(ii), C.P.C. to try the above additional issue which has been already referred to as a preliminary issue. The said application is opposed by the respondent-plaintiff on the ground that it does not relate to either of the jurisdiction of the court or the bar created under any statute, but only regarding the maintainability of the suit. The court below accepted the contention and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by this, the present C.R.P. is filed. 3. On a careful reading of R 2(ii) of O. 14. C.P.C. 1 find that the court may try the additional issue as a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or 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. It is also a discretion given to the trial court. It is also a discretion given to the trial court. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the suit was filed in the year 1977. and this petition is filed after a lapse of 11 years to try this as a preliminary issue and the issue as it stands does not relate to the jurisdiction or any bar created by any statute, but on the other hand the question is whether the plaintiff has locus siandi to file the suit at present. This is a matter to be decided only after the evidence is recorded aud after going through the document whether the plaintiff is entitled to main ain the suit presently. However, in my view, the trial Judge elaborately considered the question with reference to case laws and rightly held that the request of the petitioner to try the issue as a preliminary issue is not tenable. In the circumstances of the case, it is only just and proper to try this issue along with the other issues at the time of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent also drew the attention of the court to various decisions in this regard. In Suseela C. Ullal v. Rangappa 1, it was held that when an issue on the maintainability of the suit was framed and it was against the said order the court has not proceeded to hear any of the other issues. In the circumstances, it was observed that a plain reading of the rule namely O. 14, R. 2, C.P.C. shows that the court is mandatorily required to pronounce the judgment on all the issues subject to what is contained in sub-R. 2 It is also observed that a perusal of the order shows that even if it is held that there is no jurisdiction that would relate to the relief of possession only and the trial court ought to have pronounced the judgment on all the issues and meted out justice to the parties, Since the Court has failed to do so, the trial court has been called upon to do so and the appeal was allowed In Bardhrilai v. Ponkarmal 2, it was held that in view of the amended provision, 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 is contained in sub-R.(2). The only exception to this is contained in sub-R.(2). This sub-rule relaxes the mandate to a limited extent by conferring a discretion upon the court that if it 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. The exercise of this discretion is further 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 law in force. An objection in regard to the jurisdiction of the court may pertain either to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the court or the lack of jurisdiction on account of certain factual allegations. In Dhirenranath v. Aurea Krishna 3, it was held that trying any point as preliminary issue is discretionary and not mandatory. Further, on a careful considera tion of the facts I am of the view that the issue now relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not relate to the jurisdiction or the bar created by any law. Even otherwise, in view of the amended provision it is the discretionary power to take up this issue as a preliminary issue and the court below has held that the issue in question can be decided on facts along with the other issues. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the lower court. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. 5. It is open to the petitioner to raise all this question of maintainability on the ground of the suit being premature, etc. before the trial Court which is directed to consider the same according to law. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The lower court is directed to dispose of the suit positively within four months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.