The order dated 17th December, 1997 passed by the learned trial Court in the Court of Smti RM Kurbah, Magistrate 1st Class, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in Money Suit No. 12 (T) of 1997 is the subject matter under challenge in this revision petition under Rule 36A of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the present petitioner Meghalaya Tourism Development Corporation, Polo Ground, Shillong. The facts of the case in a very short compass are as follows: The present opposite party as plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and realisation of Rs. 65,60,000- from the defendant petitioner by contending inter alia that the said amount of money is the legitimate dues of the plaintiff respondent including interest payable by the defendant-petitioner herein for the construction work done by the plaintiff-opposite party in respect of the Tourist Lodge Building at Shillong both the civil work and supplementary work of sanitary installation and internal water supply work and the opposite party plaintiff had executed the construction work and completed the same and handed over possession of it formally on 3rd October, 1986 without objection or any complaints with regard to the construction, however, the defendant petitioner did not clear the bill and rather instead of payment of the bill amount the defendant petitioner has claimed that the plaintiff opposite party is liable to pay penalty for delay in execution of the civil construction work to the tune of Rs. 1,94,740- and Rs. 1,22,667.37 as liable for rectification of the defects and after taking the deduction the defendant has shown that the plaintiff opposite party is liable to refund a sum of Rs. 1,11,709.24 to the defendant/petitioner and in respect of the sanitary installation and inter water supply etc the defendant has shown that the plaintiff-opposite party is liable to pay a penalty due to delay in execution of sanitary works to the tune of Rs. 3,3507- and after making the deductions as shown with the amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff opposite party is Rs. 58,620.41 only and after taking all these considerations for the said works, the defendant-petitioner under its letter dated 2nd May, 1997 advised the plaintiff-opposite party to refund to the defendant a sum of Rs. 53,088.83. 3,3507- and after making the deductions as shown with the amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff opposite party is Rs. 58,620.41 only and after taking all these considerations for the said works, the defendant-petitioner under its letter dated 2nd May, 1997 advised the plaintiff-opposite party to refund to the defendant a sum of Rs. 53,088.83. According to the plaintiff as per related order of this Court passed in Civil Rule No. 54 (SH) 1989 the defendant-petitioner had already paid the security deposits to the tune of Rs. 2,76,429.85 to the plaintiff-opposite party. 2. During the pendency of the main suit being Money Suit No. 12 (T) of 1997 that before filing the written statement by the defendant/petitioner, the plaintiff filed the applications dated 27th November, 1997 and 1st December, 1997 for a direction to the defendant-petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,75,573.72 as per bills prepared by the defendant without making any deduction and without prejudice to the claims set forth by the plaintiff in the said Money Suit No. 12 (T) 1996. The learned Court below upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties passed the impugned order on 17.12.97 thus, directing the defendant to release the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4,75,573.72 upon furnishing a bank guarantee by the plaintiff-opposite party against the said amount within a period of 45 days from the date of this order. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, this present defendant petitioner filed this revision petition. 3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the available materials on record, I am of the view that the present 2 petitions dated 22.11.97 and 1.12.97 filed by the plaintiff-opposite party cannot be. entertained by the learned Court below at the relevant stage of the case/suit and the learned trial Court has also got no jurisdiction and power to pass the impugned order amounting to a decree at the relevant stage for the following reasons : (1) It is an admitted position that the impugned order was passed before filing the written statement by the defendant-petitioner on the basis of the 2 applications dated 27th November, 1997 and 1st December, 1997 as mentioned above. There are certain procedure to be followed by a civil Court or trial Court while deciding an issue in a suit and its connected application. There are certain procedure to be followed by a civil Court or trial Court while deciding an issue in a suit and its connected application. As per Order XRule 1 and 2 at the first hearing of the suit the Court shall ascertain from each party or pleader whether he admits or denies such allegations of fact as are made in the plaint or written statement and the Court shall record such admissions and denials and if the Court requires, the Court shall, with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the suit examine orally such of the parties of the suit appearing in person or present in Court as it deems fit; and at any subsequent hearing also the Court may orally examine any party appearing in person or present in the Court or any person able to answer any material question relating to the suit and the Court has a power to record admission of a party as required under Order XII of the Civil Procedure Code; and that at the first hearing of the suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the Court may at once pronounce judgment as required under Order XV Rule 1 of the CPC and where there are more defendants than one, and any one of the defendants is not at issue with the plaintiff on any question of law or of fact, the Court may at once pronounce judgment for or against such defendant and the suit shall proceed only against the other defendants as laid down under Rule 2 of Order XV and where the parties at issues the Court may proceed to determine such issues. It should be noted that 'first hearing' is either for settlement of issues as required under Order XIV of the CPC and for final hearing but it can never be earlier than the date fixed for the preliminary examination of the parties and the settlement of issues as required under Rule 1 (5) of Order XIV and Order X Rule 1 of the CPC. Hear in the instant case, without settlement of issues or without any preliminary examination of the parties in other words, before the preliminary examination of the parties and settlement of issues, the learned Court below took up those 2 petitions mentioned above even before filing written statement by the defendant-petitioner thus passing the impugned order of 17th December, 1997 which is not tenable in the eye of law and, accordingly, on this ground alone this impugned order deserves to be act aside. 4. In my considered view the learned trial Court has completely lost the sight the provision of law laid down under Order X, Order XII, Order XV, Order XVI and Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure while passing the impugned order. 5. The Apex Court had decided rather interpreted the meaning of the 'first hearing' of the suit in a case between Ved Prakash Wadhwa vs. Vishwa Mohan, reported in AIR 1982 SC 816 wherein the Apex Court held thus : "What is 'the first hearing of the suit?' Certain decision have been cited before us of the Allahabad High Court which indicate that 'the first hearing of the suit' is when, after the framing of issues, the suit is posted for trial, that is, production of evidence. In the matters of State statutes where procedure has to be pronounced upon, the practice of the Court is the best guide to interpretation and the Allahabad High Court having pronounced upon the question we think we ordinarily accept such interpretation unless there is something revoltingly wrong about the construction. We see none here and, therefore, adopt as correct the decision of the High Court regarding the meaning of the expression "at the first hearing of the suit". We may however add that the expression "at the first hearing of the suit" is also to be found in Order X Rule 1, Order XIV Rule 1 (5) and Order XV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions indicate that "the first hearing of the suit" can never be earlier than the date fixed for the preliminary examination of the parties (Order X, Rule 1) and the settlement of issues (Order XIV Rule 1 (5))." 6. These provisions indicate that "the first hearing of the suit" can never be earlier than the date fixed for the preliminary examination of the parties (Order X, Rule 1) and the settlement of issues (Order XIV Rule 1 (5))." 6. This Court need not go more into the depth as the learned Court below had acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising of its power conferred upon it and while passing the impugned order. I am also of the view that the learned Court below has no jurisdiction to entertain those 2 petitions filed by the plaintiff-respondent mentioned above and passed the impugned order at the relevant stage of the case, however, it is made clear that those pleas and claims so far made by the plaintiff-opposite party can be placed and urged by the plaintiff-opposite party by inserting those claims in the main plaint thus amending the plaint and that after the settlement of the issues, the plaintiff-opposite party may made a prayer before the learned Court below for taking a preliminary issue if so permitted by law and on the basis of it the trial Court may pass necessary order which deems fit and proper in accordance with law. 7. It is very astound to note that he impugned order dated 17.12.97 was passed by the Magistrate not by a civil Court, probably it appears to me that the Magistrate who passed the impugned order may have the power and jurisdiction to try the present suit. This kind of omission should not be repeated again by the Magistrate 1st Class, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in future. For the reasons and observations made above, the impugned order of 17.12.97 is hereby set aside, thus rejecting two petitions filed by the plaintiff with a direction to the learned Court below to dispose of the main title suit as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order by giving the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned in accordance with law. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of but no order as to costs.