JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J. (Oral): This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 13.7.1999 of the learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, whereby he had declined to treat issue pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court as a preliminary issue. 2. The learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed four issues on 13.7.1999 in respect of the merits of the case as well as the two preliminary objections raised by the defendants-petitioners qua the jurisdiction of the Court and the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. A request was made to the learned trial Court by the petitioners to treat issue No.2 pertaining to territorial jurisdiction of the court as preliminary issue. The learned trial court declined such request on the ground that since the said issue involved a question of fact and law and parties had to adduce evidence, it would be appropriate if all the issues are tried together. 3. The question which arises in the present case is whether the impugned order falls within the expression "case decided" and is within the ambit of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A case can be said to be decided, if the court adjudicates for the purposes of the suit or proceeding some, right or obligation of the parties in controversy, or where an order passed by a Court if allowed to stand would occassion a failure of justice and/or cause irreparable injury to a party against whom it is made. In the present case, neither the trial court has adjudicated upon right or obligation of the parties in controversy nor the impugned order if allowed to remain would cause any failure of justice or cause irreparable loss or injury to the petitioners. 4. Under Rule 2 of Order 14, Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court has the discretion to try an issue as a preliminary issue. To exercise or to refuse to exercise the discretion in a particular manner will not mean the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it in a wrong manner. The discretion has been exercised in the present case in a proper manner since no decision on the issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction can be rendered without recording evidence. The issue involves both questions of fact and law. The discretion has been exercised in the present case in a proper manner since no decision on the issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction can be rendered without recording evidence. The issue involves both questions of fact and law. Since evidence was to be led, the learned District Judge has rightly not treated the issue qua jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. 5. The impugned order, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of "case decided" and, as such, the revision petition is not maintainable. The same is, accordingly, rejected.