H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionists-defendants. This revision is directed against the Order dated 30th October, 1995, passed by the Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 1962 of 1992. The Order dated 3-10-1995, reads as under:"additional Issue number, I framed as under: (1) whether the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act? The case is posted for evidence on all issues since the additional issues is as mixed question of law and facts. As the learned Counsels argument that it should be heard as preliminary issue cannot be allowed. For evidence call 4-12-1995". ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the defendants submitted that the learned Court below after having framed the additional issue, ought to have heard the parties and decided the additional issue quoted above as the preliminary issue and it has acted illegally in opining that issue cannot be treated as preliminary issue. Now, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted before me that it involved the question of maintainability or non-maintainability of the suit, in view of section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act if on this ground, the suit can very well be thrown out as not maintainable, the Lower court should have decided the issue as preliminary issue. ( 3 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionists. In may opinion, there is no substance in the contentions and my reasons for the same are that, so far as the trial of an issue as preliminary issue is concerned, the law is well settled. Prior to the amendment of rule 2 of Order 14, the Law in that connection had been laid down in Major S. S. Khanna v Brig. F. J. Dillon, at pages 502 and 503 as under:"under Order 14, Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure, where issues both of law and of faet arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the, issues of law have been determined. The jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from the issues of fact may be exercised only wherein, in the opinion of the Court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of law alone, but the code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues. Normally all the issues in a suit should be tried by the court: Not to do so, especially when the decision on issues even of law depends upon the decision of issues of fact, would result in a lop-sided trial of the suit". ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, by Civil Laws Amendment Act, Act No. 104 of 1976, new Rule 2 had been substituted which reads as under:"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 or any part thereof may be disposed of on 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". ( 5 ) A reading of this rate per se reveals that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2, it has been provided that irrespective of the fact that the case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the mandate of the law is that ordinarily, the courts shall pronounce the judgment on all issues, but, sub-rule (2) provides that where in the suit, issues both on law and facts arise and if the Court is of opinion that the case may be disposed of on the issue of law only, then, if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or if relates to a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, then, the Court may try the issue as a preliminary issue and postpone the determination or settlement of other issues. The rule per se also reveals that the legislature firstly followed the principle of law enunciated as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of khanna, supra and provided that it is only the issues of law that can be tried as preliminaty issue, provided the other conditions are fulfilled, namely, the issue of law relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or relates to a bar created by law in force, where, if the court is of opinion that on a decision of that issue, the case or part of the case can be disposed of, it may decide that preliminary issue, but as regards issue of fact or issues mixed of law and fact, even if the question of jurisdiction depends thereon and even if that suit may be disposed of finally on those issues, such issues cannot be decided as preliminary issues. The issues of pure law but not touching the jurisdiction of the Court or not relating to bar of the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be tried as preliminary issues as well. ( 6 ) THAT being the position of law, in the present case, an additional issue framed by the Court below relating to the power under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, for short 'act', involves mixed question of law and fact was rightly not tried as preliminary issues. ( 7 ) THE question of fact to be established and decided is: whether the firm in question has been registered or not? ( 7 ) THE question of fact to be established and decided is: whether the firm in question has been registered or not? defendant may say, it is not registered and plaintiff may say it is registered and evidence may be required. The issue of fact, which has first to be decided is whether the firm has been registered or not. It is on issue of fact, this finding is to be recorded, thereafter when it records finding on that issue of fact the Court will have to decide if the suit is maintainable or not. ( 8 ) SO, in my opinion, the additional issue has been framed which the revisionists-petitioners desired to be heard as preliminary issue involves a mixed question of fact and law. It is not the admitted position between the parties that the firm is riot registered one. Once it is not the admitted position between the parties, then, all the issues have to be decided after recording of the evidence on them by the Court. ( 9 ) IT can be said that the learned Trial Court was justified in opining that since the additional issue involves mixed questions of law and fact, the suit was to be posted for evidence on all issues and it has rightly opined that the issue could not be tried as preliminary issue. ( 10 ) HAVING thus considered, I am of the opinion, that the order impugned does not suffer from error of jurisdiction. Therefore, this revision under Section 115 of the Code being without merits is hereby dismissed as misconceived. --- *** --- .