JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma J., The plaintiff petitioner has filed this Civil Revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Code") against order dated 14.10.1993 passed by the Munsif, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 77 of 1991, where by the suit has been held to be not maintainable as barred by the limitation, on the said issue having been tried as preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code. 2. With the consent of the parties, this Civil Revision Application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for deceleration of title over the entire land described in Schedule 'A' recovery of possession over the land described in Schedule 'B' forming portion of Schedule 'A' and confirmation of possession over the land described in Schedule 'c' being the rest portion of Schedule 'A' or in the event the plaintiff is illegally dispossessed during the tendency of the suit from Schedule 'C' land or any portion thereof then for its recovery of possession as also permanent injunction restraining defends 1 and 2 from dispossessing him or going upon entering into the Schedule 'C' land. 4. The Plaintiff based his claim for title and possession on the basis of an unregistrated agreement for sale dated 4. 12. 1982 said to be executed in his favor by defendants no. 1. 5. The suit has been filed in the year 1991. Although defendant no. 1 appeared in the suit but he has not contested the suit. Defendant no. 2 appeared and filed written Statement. Issue were framed on 23. 6. 1993. 6. Thereafter defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code (Annexure 2) for taking up the issue regarding maintainability of the suit as preliminary issue and deciding the same. The plain filed rejoinder thereto (Annexure 3). By the impugned order the trial court has decided the question of maintainability of the suit as preliminary issue and held as under. "Thus in my opinion the suit as framed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title on the basis of agreement for sale of the year 1982 in not maintainable and the suit is prima-facie barred by limitation". 7. Mr. Roy, counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bhupinder Kamal vrs. "Thus in my opinion the suit as framed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title on the basis of agreement for sale of the year 1982 in not maintainable and the suit is prima-facie barred by limitation". 7. Mr. Roy, counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bhupinder Kamal vrs. Selhi Municipality (A.I.R. 1980 Delhi 121) and submitted that by virtue of the amended provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of the code only two categories of issues relating to (a) the jurisdiction of the court and (b) a bar to the suit aerated by any law for the time being in force can be decided as preliminary issue The issue, which has been decided in the instant case does not fall, in the aforesaid two categories and so that trial court has not properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, while deciding the said issue and as such the impugned order deciding the said issue, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice and in any case, cause irreparable injury to the petitioner and so the same be set aside. 8. On the other hand Mr. Eqbal, counsel for the opposite party no.2 raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the impugned order dismissing the suit as against the defendant-opposite party no.2 to be not maintainable is an appellable one, therefore, the result Civil Revision application is not maintainable. 9. it is well settled that against the order deciding the preliminary issue, the remedy is by Appeal. Only the order refusing to try the preliminary issue is revisable. 10. In the instant case , the trial court vide the impugned order, has come to conclusion that the suit based on unregistered agreement for sale of the year 1982 is barred by limitation and as such the same is not maintainable. 11. If my opinion, is a case where issue of law goes to the very root of the case such as on the point of limitation, it is incumbent upon the court the determine the said issue of law first, as it will save unnecessary inconvenience and expense to the parties and waste of time and labour of the Court, as well. 12. 12. So far the issue of Bhupinder Kamal (supra) is concerned, one of the issues in the suit was “has the suit become in fructuous by payment of Tax due?" The tax due was paid after filling the suit and the plaint was accordingly amended The said issue was decided as preliminary issue and was decided against the plaintiff holding the suit to be non maintaining on the ground that after payment of the Tex due. The suit for mere deceleration and injunction Accordingly it was decided as a preliminary issue did not fall in the category of the preliminary issue which are permissible to be tried as such under the provision or order 14 of the code In the said order Section 115 of the code was held to be maintainable. 13. The order impugned, which was under consideration in the aforesaid decision, was passed with respect to an issue which was neither related to the jurisdiction of the court to nor to a bar the suit created by any law for the time being in force, whereas I the present case the trail court has found the suit to be non maintainable, which was undoubtedly an issue law of which goes to the very root of the case. The Delhi case merely has held that in case, an issue which could not have been taken up and decided as preliminary issue under order 14 rule 2 of the Code, has wrongly been decided as such, the order taking such decision can be revised under Section 115 of the Code. 14. In my opinion, the said decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein the suit has been held to be non - maintainable for having been barred by limitation which was an issue of law. 15. Accordingly, I held that the order impugned is appellable and this civil Revision application is not maintainable. 16. In the result, this civil Revision application is dismissed. Application dismissed.