This revision is directed against the order dated 27.2.92 passed by the Assistant District Judge No.l, Gauhati in Title Suit No. 275 of 1986. 2. The opposite party No.l brought the aforesaid suit in the Court of the Assistant District Judge No.l against the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. Opposite party No.5 was arrayed as proforma defendant. The suit was for recovery of an amount of Rs 69, 37, 771.17. The plaintiff also prayed for future interest. The petitioner entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement. Several issues were framed including Issue No.6. Issue No.6 reads as follows ;- “Whether the suit is barred under the provision of the Assam Co-opera­tive Societies Act, 1949, the rules made there under and by-laws of the plaintiff bank. Whether civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit?" After forming of the issues the petitioner filed Annexure C application stating, inter alia, that as per section 63 of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, the plaintiff as a registered co-operative society ought to have referred to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam for resolving the dispute, if any, between the defendant No.l and the plaintiff society and between the defendant No.l and the proforma defendant No.7 and/or between the plaintiff and the proforma defendant No.7. By order dated 27.2.92 the trial Court after discussing various decisions observed thus - " From the petition No. 126/92 dated 6.1.92 filed by the defendant No. 1 it appears that some documents which are not admitted by the plaintiff are to be considered. So, in deciding the issue No.6 both the facts and law will involve and to prove the documents, evidence may be necessary. On the other hand, the case has come to the stage of hearing. " 3. Under section 63 of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 any dispute touching the business of a registered society, other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a society against an employee of the society, or of the liquidator of a society shall be referred to the Registrar for decision if the parties thereto are as mentioned in clauses (a) to (e). Section 63 (b) provides for referring the dispute to the Registrar if there is a dispute touching the business of a registered society and if the parties thereto are member, past member or persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of the society. In this case admittedly the petitioner is a member of the said registered Co-operative Bank and, therefore, the provisions of section 63 of the Act squarely apply. In Munshi Ram & others vs. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250 , the Supreme Court observed as follows :- " It is well recognised that where a Revenue Statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way. it must be sought in that forum and in that manner, and all other forums and modes of seeking it are excluded. Construed in the light of this principle, it is clear that sections 84 and 86 of the Municipal Act bar, by inevitable implication, the jurisdiction of the civil Court where the grievance of the party relates to an assessment or the principle of assessment under this Act." Similarly, in this case also as per section 63 of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act such disputes are to be referred to Registrar. However, this is a matter to be decided in dealing with the issue. 4. Now the question before this Court is whether in order to decide the said issue any evidence will be necessary. The trial Court relying on the petition filed by the petitioner held that some evidence would be necessary. I am afraid I am unable to accept the said view. If the dispute comes within section 63 of the Act, in my opinion, no further evidence will be necessary and therefore, proviso under Order 14 Rule 2, this issue is to be decided first before other issues. Under Order 14 Rule 2 Court shall pronounce judgment on all issues notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue. How­ever, where in a suit issues both of law and fact arise and in the opinion of the Court the case may be disposed of on a issue of law, it may try that issue first. Under Order 14 Rule 2 Court shall pronounce judgment on all issues notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue. How­ever, where in a suit issues both of law and fact arise and in the opinion of the Court the case may be disposed of on a issue of law, it may try that issue first. But this can only be done when issue relates to the jurisdiction of a Court or a bar to a suit created by any law for the time being in force. Rule 2 has been substituted by 1976 Amendment. The object of the amendment is that where a decision of a case disposed of on a preliminary issue of law is reversed in appeal, the appellate Court has to remand the appeal under Order 41 Rule 23 to the Court of first instance for trial on other issues and this always causes delay. In order to avoid this type of delay, the amended rule provides that a Court must give a judgment on all issues. But where any issue of law relates to jurisdiction of a Court or a bar of suit, the Court may postpone the settlement of other issues until the aforesaid issue as preliminary issue has been determined and the Court may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision of that preliminary issue. Therefore, Rule 2 of Order 14 enables a Court to dispose of a suit on a preliminary issue when it goes to the root of the case such as on the point of limitation, res judicata, jurisdiction or being barred on the face of it by law, etc. In such cases it is incumbent on the part of the Court to determine the issue of law first as it will save unnecessary inconvenience and expenses to the parties and avoid waste of time and labour of the Court. The discretion to try a preliminary issue is to be exercised only when it is clear that that decision will decide the suit finally once for all. It is true that in the amended provisions there is a mandate that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court has to pronounce on all issues with only exceptions mentioned in sub-rule (2). It is true that in the amended provisions there is a mandate that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court has to pronounce on all issues with only exceptions mentioned in sub-rule (2). A comparative reading of Order 14 Rule 2 as it existed before 1976 Amendment and after the amendment would clearly indicate that the consideration of an issue and its disposal as a preliminary issue may be presumably only in limited cases. Before the amendment, the categorisation was only between the issue of law and fact and it was mandatory for the Court to try issues of law for first instance and to postpone the settlement of issue of facts until after the issue of law had been determined. On the other hand, in the amended provisions there is a mandate lo the Court that in spite of the fact that the case may be disposed of on preliminary issue, the Court has to pronounce the judgment on all the issues with the exceptions mentioned in sub-rule (2). But once the case comes under Order 14 Rule 2 (2) the Court has to decide a particular issue as a preliminary issue and in deciding so the Court has to apply its mind. Although the word 'shall' has been substituted by the word 'may' in the amended provision of Order 14 Rule 2, that docs not mean that Court should refuse to take up a particular issue as a preliminary issue at its own will. It is the duty of the Court to see if the particular issue comes within the purview of Order 14 Rule 2 (2). It should apply its mind to see whether the case can be disposed of without taking any evidence, etc. If in the opinion of the Court the case falls within the ambit of Order 14 Rule 2(2), it should not prolong the litigation and should dispose of the suit by deciding the preliminary issue. 5. In view of the above, in my opinion, in the impugned order the Assistant District Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and, therefore the impugned order must be set aside. 5. In view of the above, in my opinion, in the impugned order the Assistant District Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and, therefore the impugned order must be set aside. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and direct the Court below to decide issue No.6 as & preliminary issue and proceed with the case if the answer in issue No.6 is in negative and against the petitioner. 6. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel submits that as the case is of i986 and the evidence is yet to be recorded, it requires expeditious disposal. Mr. Bhattacharyya has no objection it the matter is heard expeditiously. In view of the above, I direct the parties to appear before the Assistant District Judge No.l Gauhati on 26.8.93 to take a date. On that day the Assistant District Judge shall fix a date within 15 days from that date and hear the matter and dispose of the preliminary issue at the earliest. Send down the case records immediately.