JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of present writ application are as follows: A proceeding under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, was initiated against present opposite party No. !. Against the order of eviction passed by the original authority, present opposite party No. 1 filed Misc. Appeal No. 42 of 1981 before the District Judge, Cuttack. In the said appeal, the present Petitioner had been arrayed as Respondent No. 2. It appears that the appeal was heard ex parte. On 8-9-1981, the following order was passed: Heard Advocates for both the sides. The Respondent-3 has given an offer to the Appellant. The G.P. wants time till tomorrow to confirm the same. Let both sides finally state about the latest offer by 9-9-81. On 9-9-1981. the following order was passed: None appears for the Respondents. Heard further arguments from the side of Appellant. To 10-9-81 for judgment." On 10-9-1981. the appeal was allowed and the order of eviction passed by the original authority was set aside. Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of the present Petitioner on 19-2-1982 for setting aside/recalling the judgment dated 10-9-1981 and for giving an opportunity of hearing to the present Petitioner on the ground that notice had not' been served on Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, on 15-1-1983. a petition was filed on behalf of present opposite party No. 1 for hearing the question of maintainability of the application filed by the present Petitioner. Subsequently, by virtue of the amendment of the Act. the District Judge transferred the records to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. However, in O.J.C. No. 2496 of 11983, it was directed that the matter has to be taken up by the District Judge and the matter thus came back to the District Judge. Thereafter, on behalf of present opposite party No. 1 another application was filed for considering the question of maintainability of the application filed by the present Petitioner I at first. It appears from the various orders that the said application was being adjourned from time to time. On 7-5-1992. the District Judge directed that the matter should be put up on 23-7-1992 for hearing of the misc. case along with maintainability. Thereafter, present opposite party No. 1 filed an application on 23-7-1992 for recalling the order dated 7-5-1992 with a prayer that before hearing of the misc. On 7-5-1992. the District Judge directed that the matter should be put up on 23-7-1992 for hearing of the misc. case along with maintainability. Thereafter, present opposite party No. 1 filed an application on 23-7-1992 for recalling the order dated 7-5-1992 with a prayer that before hearing of the misc. case the question of maintainability of the misc. case should be taken up as a preliminary point. This application was again adjourned on some pretexts or the other for further period of about four years and ultimately on 23-8-1996. the District Judge passed an order recalling the order dated 7-5-1992 and directed that the question of maintainability of the misc. case shall be taken up first. The relevant portion of that order is as follows: 4. Question now for consideration is whether the misc. case will be heard at first on preliminary point of maintainability or it will be heard on merit along with the preliminary point of maintainability. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has taken me through various provisions of Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and the concerned rules in support of such contention in regard to the non-maintainability of this misc. case. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no harm in hearing the misc. case on merit along with the point of maintainability. 5. The fact remains that earlier orders were passed for hearing on preliminary point of maintainability. In case it is held that the misc. case is not maintainable, there may not be necessity to go into the merits. If on the other, hand the preliminary point is decided against the opposite party No. 1 the misc. case can be heard on merit. 6. In view of the earlier orders' for hearing on preliminary point of maintainability it is desirable to hear this mise. case on this point of -maintainability at first. Accordingly, order dated 7-5-92 is recalled. Put up on 26-9-96 for hearing on the preliminary point of maintainability of the misc. case. Both sides to come ready. The aforesaid order is being impugned by the present Petitioner. The Petitioner has contended that hearing of the matter piecemeal would not be in the interest of justice and since the District Judge had passed an order on 7-5-1992 for hearing the misc. case. Both sides to come ready. The aforesaid order is being impugned by the present Petitioner. The Petitioner has contended that hearing of the matter piecemeal would not be in the interest of justice and since the District Judge had passed an order on 7-5-1992 for hearing the misc. case along with maintainability, there was no justification for recalling of such order. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 apart from justifying the order dated 23-8-1996 passed by the District Judge has submitted that the misc. case itself is not maintainable, as the order passed by the District Judge allowing the appeal had become final and there is no provision in the Act for setting aside an ex parte order. 3. The question as to whether the misc. application filed for setting aside the order/recalling the order and giving an opportunity to the Petitioner of' hearing in the appeal is maintainable, though argued at length by learned Senior Counsel for opposite party No. 1 should not be and need not be decided in the present writ application, as any observation made in the writ application is likely to prejudice either party. The main question is as to whether the misc. case filed by the present petitioner should be taken up for hearing along with the question of maintainability, or whether the question of maintainability should be considered first before taking up the misc. case on merit. Without expressing any opinion, it appears prima facie that the question as to whether the misc. case would be maintainable or not may also depend upon the question as to whether notice in the Misc. Appeal had been served on the present Petitioner, or not and as such, it cannot be said that the question raised is a pure question of law:. Order 14. Rule 2(2). Code of Civil Procedure, contemplates taking up a matter as preliminary point if the said matter relates to jurisdiction of the Court and a pure question of law. 4. Since factual dispute may - crop up regarding service of notice, it would not be advisable to take up the matter relating to maintainability as a preliminary point. The.- intention of law, as evident from Order 14, Rule 2(1), C.P.C. is that as far as possible a matter should be decided on all points and not on some points only. Since factual dispute may - crop up regarding service of notice, it would not be advisable to take up the matter relating to maintainability as a preliminary point. The.- intention of law, as evident from Order 14, Rule 2(1), C.P.C. is that as far as possible a matter should be decided on all points and not on some points only. As such, the contention of the counsel for opposite party No. 1 that the question of maintainability should be taken up first and the subsequent order passed by the District Judge recalling the earlier order should be upheld does not appear to be justified. 5. Apart from the a hove, it appears that the District' Judge has recalled the earlier order dated 7-5-1992 where under the matter had been posted for hearing of the misc. case along with maintainability on some erroneous conception regarding the earlier orders passed. We have gone through the entire order sheet and we find that at no point of time the Court had passed a conscious judicial order directing hearing of the question of maintainability as a preliminary point. The tenor of the various orders indicates as if the Court was adjourning the matter for considering the petitions for hearing the question of maintainability as a preliminary point. Moreover, even assuming that any such order had earlier been passed, that cannot be a ground to recall the subsequent order dated 7-5-1992. The direction regarding hearing of the misc. case along with maintainability was not likely to prejudice present opposite party No. 1. On the other hand, if the question of maintainability is first directed to be taken up, it is evident that any order ultimately passed on question of maintainability is likely to be challenged further by the aggrieved party thus delaying further the disposal of the matter. As it is, it appears that the matter is pending since about seventeen' years. Any order which likely to linger further such long pending matter would not be in the interest of justice. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the write application is allowed, the order dated 23-8-1996 is quashed and the District Judge is directed to take up the hearing of the misc. case along with the question of maintainability. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the write application is allowed, the order dated 23-8-1996 is quashed and the District Judge is directed to take up the hearing of the misc. case along with the question of maintainability. Needless to' point out "that the matter should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the present order and the records. A perusal of the order-sheets indicates that the various presiding officers have merrily adjourned the case from time to time which has resulted in this unseemly delay. This order is communicated to the District Judge. Requisites shall be filed within three days. The records are sent back immediately. P. K. Patra, J. 6. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed