JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiffs are petitioners in this Civil Revision. 2. In a suit for partition, trial Court having passed an order of abatement of the suit u/s 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act'). It was assailed in Civil Revision. Order was set aside and it was observed as follows : "What the learned Munsif is required now to do is to examine the pleadings of the parties and in order to appreciate the substance thereof and find out whether complete relief in the facts of the case would be available to the plaintiffs before the consolidation authorities. If the learned Munsif comes to the conclusion that a specific prayer for setting aside the document In question is necessary to be made, he may call upon the plaintiffs to suitably amend the plaint and pay additional court-fee payable, and then decide as to whether the suit would be confined to such relief alone leaving the paryer for partition to be adjudicated by the Consolidation authorities or the suit is maintainable as a whole, before the Civil Court." 71 (1891) CLT 386 (Santipriya Jena and Anr. v. Rebati Naik and Ors.). 3. After the order was set aside and the matter was remitted back, trial Court considered the question afresh. While so considering, it held that suit is not barred u/s 4(4) of the Ant as it was filed after notification u/s 3 of the Act but is not maintainable u/s 51 of the Act. Thereafter, it held that as per the provision under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC, he is to answer all issues and pass the judgment. This is the grievance of the plaintiffs. 4. Order 14, Rule 2 C. P.C. reads as follows : "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. This is the grievance of the plaintiffs. 4. Order 14, Rule 2 C. P.C. reads as follows : "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 of 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 in accordance with the decision on that issue". Plain reading of the provision indicates that a suit is not to be disposed of on a preliminary issue and judgment shall be pronounced on all issues. However, in cases where Court is of opinion that a suit can be disposed of either fully or in part on an issue of law only when it relates to jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to suit created by any law, it may postpone settlement of issues. The discretion to postpone settlement of issue till after decision on preliminary issue indicates that after settlement of issues, judgment is to be passed on all issues including the maintainability of the suit on question of jurisdiction or on question of bar of suit created by any law and discretion under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC is not to be exercised. 5. In the earlier civil revision the only question was whether the suit has abated u/s 4(4) of the Act. In that context direction was given in the earlier extracted passage in the said civil revision. When the suit is found not to have abated since it is not a suit pending on the date the land came within the consolidation area, the question of bar of suit was not required to be decided as a preliminary issue. General rule is that judgment is to be delivered on all issues should have been followed. When the suit is found not to have abated since it is not a suit pending on the date the land came within the consolidation area, the question of bar of suit was not required to be decided as a preliminary issue. General rule is that judgment is to be delivered on all issues should have been followed. In this case, learned Munsif has found that the suit is not maintainable being barred u/s 51 of the Act. This is an exercise of the discretionary power under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC. After coming to such a conclusion, learned Munsif was not required to deliver a judgment on the other issues. Where a suit is tried on all issues judgment is not to be delivered on one issue only. Where, however, trial Court is of opinion and parties accepted that suit involves issue of jurisdiction or bar of suit under any law which is a question of law only which can be decided on the relief sought as revealed from the plaint. Court has discretion to decided that issue preliminarily. Order of abatement of suit u/s 4(4) of the Act does not come within scope of the same. Where trial Court finds that suit is barred by law or Civil Court has no jurisdiction it has discretion to deliver the judgment on that issue alone which would be followed by a decree. An appeal lies against such a decree. In case, appellate Court would find that the issue has not been properly answered, it can set aside the decree and remit back the suit for trial on all issues. Therefore, trial Court is not correct to direct that it shall proceed to deliver judgment on other issues. 6. Mr. Patnaik submitted that relief in the suit is dependent upon the validity of the sale deed and without deciding such validity, relief sought for in the suit cannot be granted by the authorities under the Act to create a bar of the suit u/s 51 of the Act. Mr. Patnaik further submitted that after the stage of Section 21 of the Act a suit for partition is maintainable and Section 51 would not be a bar. I need not consider this question at this stage in Civil Revision which can be effectively considered by the appellate Court when an appeal is filed. 7. Mr. Patnaik further submitted that after the stage of Section 21 of the Act a suit for partition is maintainable and Section 51 would not be a bar. I need not consider this question at this stage in Civil Revision which can be effectively considered by the appellate Court when an appeal is filed. 7. On the discussion made above that part of the order by which trial Court held that other issues are to be tried is vacated on the finding that suit is barred u/s 51 of the Act. Finding that suit is barred is to be treated as judgment and a formal decree is to be drawn up to give opportunity to plaintiff to prefer an appeal. 8. In the result, civil revision is allowed and impugned order is set aside to the extent that the other issues need not be considered for pronouncement of judgment. A decree may be passed to give the appellant chance to exercise his right of appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed