Honble MITAL J.–This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.11.95 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Jodhpur, District Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 1/93 (Shyam Lal vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) whereby the application of the petitioner was dismissed, wherein he prayed to hear and decide Issues No. 5 & 6 alongwith other Issues framed on 23.9.95. The learned Civil Judge passed the order that Issue No. 6 relates to the jurisdiction to try the suit and being a issue of pure question of law should be decided as preliminary issue under O. XIV R. 2 C.P.C. (2). Briefly stated, the petitioner plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the non-petitioners defendants to restrain them from interferring in carrying on the business of sale of stones by the petitioner in the name and style M/s Shyam Lal Tulsi Ram on Akhali (a place) situated in Khasra No.6 of village Bedli described in Para No.3 of the plaint. The petitioner claimed that he has not violated the provisions of any law applicable to his business but the non-petitioners defendants are interferring out of mere enmity. (3). The non-petitioners filed written statement controverting the averment in the plaint and also took the plea that the Civil Court had no Jurisdiction to try the suit because it related to an agricultural land. The learned Civil Judge settled the issues on 23.9.95 and adjourned the case for hearing the arguments on Issues No. 5 & 6 as preliminary issues. The petitioner submitted an application under Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C. that Issues No. 5 & 6 do not involve question of law and should be heard and decided with all the other issues. This application came to be rejected under the impugned order by the learned Civil Judge after hearing both the parties. The learned Civil Judge held that both the issues are preliminary issues involving question of law and exercised discretion under Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C. for deciding the issues at the initial stage. He disagreed with the plea raised on behalf of the pe- titioner that despite being issues of question of law, the Court ought to decide them with other issues. (4). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In all, seven issues have been struck in this case. He disagreed with the plea raised on behalf of the pe- titioner that despite being issues of question of law, the Court ought to decide them with other issues. (4). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In all, seven issues have been struck in this case. The burdon of proof of two issues, No. 1 & 2 have been laid upon the plaintiff. Issue No.1 is whether the plaintiff possesses `Akhali as des- cribed in Paras No. 3 & 4 of the plaint and it is being used by him for commercial purposes. The second Issue is – Whether the defendants are interferring in the stone business of the plaintiff illegally and unauthorisedly as mentioned in Para 6 of the plaint. The burdon of proof of four issues No. 3 to 6 have been placed on the defendants and the last seventh issue is regarding `relief. Issues No. 3 & 4 relate to the fact of illegal quarrying and sale of stones on the said `Akhali by the plaintiff without any authority and defendants right to stop the same and seize the stones as stated in Para 6(3) of the written statement. In the back ground of the above issues No. 1 to 4, we are now directly concerned with Issues No. 5 & 6 in this revision petition to examine the correctness of the impugned order which are reproduced as under :- ^^5- vk;k okn i= izLrqr djus ds fy;s tks vuqefr /kkjk 80¼2½ lh-ih-lh- es nh x;h gS og voS/k gS rFkk nksuksa i{kksa dks mDr vuqefr nsus ls iwoZ lquuk vfuok;Z gS\ 6- vk;k okn d`f"k Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr gksus ds dkj.k U;k;ky; dks okn Jo.kkf/kdkj ugha gSA jktLo U;k;ky; dks gh okn dk Jo.kkf/kdkj gS\** (5). The important question now arises for determination whether the Issues No. 5 & 6 can be held to be pure question of law. Still further, even if being issues of pure question of law, whether these issues should be decided as preliminary issues within the scope of the provisions under Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C. Before addressing on the above points, it will be proper to consider the provision in this regard under Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C. Order XIV makes provision for settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agree upon. In Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 it has been laid down that issues arise when the parties are at variance on material preposition of fact of of law on which the right decision of the case depends. Sub- rule (4) provides that issues are of two kinds (a) - Issue of fact; and (b) issues of law. (6). Order XIV Rule 2 provides to pronounce judgment on all issues. This provision is reproduced below:- ``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 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 ac- cordance with the decision on that issue. (7). Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 casts the duty on the Court by using the word `shall, to pronounce judgment on all issues even if the case can be disposed of on a preliminary issue. However, an exception has been provided in the provision of Sub-rule (2) which lays down that if the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be decided on a issue of law, Court may try that issue first but only when that issue relates to (a) jurisdiction of the Court or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law. It is crystal clear that by use of word `may after the amendment of Rule 2 in 1976 it is not obligatory on the Court to decide the question of law first and thereafter to proceed to decide other issues. It has been left open to the judicial discretion of the Court in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. It has been left open to the judicial discretion of the Court in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for exercising this discretion, but it may be observed that such discretion should be exercised only when necessity exists to decide the issue of law relating to jurisdiction of the Court or legal bar to the maintainance of the suit as a preliminary issue. If such issue is decided without there being necessity, it gives rise to appeals or revisions and probably stay orders resulting prolonged proceedings which is likely to frustrate the very object and purpose of the amendment made with a view to curtail the proceedings. While exercising jurisdiction, the Court should weigh all the pros and cons of the case considering the other issues with a sole object of deciding the suit/dispute expedi- tiously and not with a casual approach and to adop short cut method. Each and every legal issue cannot be decided as preliminary issue unless it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or the bar to the maintainance of the suit by any law in force. (8). Now, we shall consider the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that Issues No. 5 & 6 are not question of law and even if these issues are treated as pure question of law, Issues No. 5 & 6 should be decided with all the issues in view of the provision under Order XIV C.P.C. I have perused the impugned order. The learned Civil Judge has observed that it is not necessary that evidence of the parties should be recorded for deciding issues No. 5 & 6 because the plaintiff is bound be the averments made in the plaint and no evidence will come on record beyond such averments. According to the learned Civil Judge, Issues No. 5 & 6 are purely legal issues. Therefore, Issues No. 5 & 6 could be decided as preliminary issues be- cause Issue No. 6 is directly related to the question of jurisdiction to hear and try the suit and there is no bar to decide these issues as preliminary issues in the provision of Order XIV C.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not claimed in the suit any relief for the agricultural land. His suit is for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from inter- ferring in the business of the plaintiff on his agricultural land. It is argued that the plaintiff has filed the suit for seeking relief in respect of his business and not agricultural land for which evidence is required on record that the petitioner is carrying on such business. The defendants have denied the factum of running the business by the petitioner and have further alleged that the petitioner is illegally quarrying stones in his agricultural land. These points are clearly questions of fact for which Issues No. 1 to 4 have been framed and it is relevant to take into consideration the above facts alongwith Issue No.6 for arriving at any finding regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. (9). I have given my earnest consideration to the aforesaid arguments advan- ced on behalf ot the petitioner. It is true that the plaintiff-petitioner cannot lead evidence beyond the averments made in the plaint. But it is also important to note that the defendants have emphatically denied the averment of doing business on the agricultural land by the petitioner. On the other hand, the defendants case is that they are preventing the petitioner from illegal quarrying and sale of stones. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that these rival averments made by the parties will be also relevant for deciding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in Issue No. 6 and this fact can be appreciated only on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. Issues are framed when a material preposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by other party. Issues No. 1 to 4 have been framed in respect of the aforesaid question of fact and in my view, a question of jurisdiction involved in Issue No. 6 is not a pure question of law but a mixed question of law and fact. If Issue No.6 is pure question of law, even then I am of the view that in the over all facts and circumstances of this case and the issues framed as discussed above, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitoner that Issue No.6 should be decided with all other issues to settle the dispute between the parties effectively and finally. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reightly drawn support from the decisions Usha Sales Ltd. vs. Malcom Gomes & Ors. (1), Sunni Central Waqf Board & Ors. vs. Gopal Singh Vishrad & Ors. (2), Nane Shah vs. Manohar Singh (3) and the decision dated 18.12.1997 rendered by this Court in Sardul Singh vs. Nizamuddin (4). Issue No.5 also involved mixed question of law and fact whether the suit is to obtain an urgent or immediate relief or not which depends on the circumstances of the case which can be proved by leading evidence by the parties. On the basis of that evidence alone the Court can come to the finding that the permission accorded to the petitioner-plaintiff to insti- tute suit without serving notice under section 80 C.P.C. is valid or not. (10). The up shot of the above discussion is that the impugned order is not in consonance with the provision under Order XIV Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.11.95 is hereby set aside with the direction to try the suit in accordance with law.