JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for possession inter alia alleging that the plaintiff's are partners of hotel Navjivan. It is also alleged that plaintiff-respondent No. 2 is the Karta and Manager of Hindu Joint Family. It was also averred by the plaintiffs in their plaint that defendant No. 2 is the servant and he was provided rent free accommodation being a servant and after resignation from service by the defendant despite notice given to him, he did not vacate the suit premises which necessitated to file the present suit for possession. The valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee was averred in the plaint at Rs. 40,000/-. 2. The defendant-revisionist resisted the suit by filing a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The defendant in his statement claimed that the market value of the suit premises is not less than Rs. 3 lakhs, therefore, suit is not cognizable by the learned trial court and the payment of court fee is inadequate. It is to be noticed that plea relating to jurisdiction and insufficient payment of court fee is inter-linked with pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial court. 3. It seems from the memo of revision that after filing of written statement, learned trial court framed 14 issues focusing the attention of both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. After framing of issues, the defendant-revisionist moved an application under Section 151 CPC making prayer to the learned trial court to this effect that issue nos. 10 and 11 may be decided as preliminary issues. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court rejected the aforesaid application and held that judgment will be pronounced on all issues after conclusion of evidence by both the parties. 5. It is urged by learned counsel for the revisionist Sh. Suresh Shrimali that learned trial court has committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. According to Mr. Shrimali, the question relating to payment of court fee touching the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court should have been decided as preliminary issue. The aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is not acceptable in view of the mandatory non obstante Sub-rule (1) of R. 2 of 0.14 CPC which reads as follows : "2. According to Mr. Shrimali, the question relating to payment of court fee touching the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court should have been decided as preliminary issue. The aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is not acceptable in view of the mandatory non obstante Sub-rule (1) of R. 2 of 0.14 CPC which reads as follows : "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." 6. It goes without saying that even if in a particular case an issue or issues are capable to be decided as a preliminary issues, yet the court can decline to decide the same as preliminary issue or issues as the case may be unless such issue or issues strictly fall within the purview of sub-rule (2) of R. 2 of O. 14 CPC. Sub-rule (2) of R. 2 of O. 14 CPC is also reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference : "(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 untill after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue." 7. From the conjoint reading of sub-rule (1) and (2) of R. 2 of O. 14 CPC, it is crystal clear that a question can be decided as a preliminary issue only on point of law which does not require any evidence indicate the jurisdiction of the court barred expressly or implied as postulated under Section 9 of CPC or relating to a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. It is to be noticed that the questions which are to be decided under Clause (a) or (b) of Sub-rule (2) R. 2 of O. 14 CPC make it clear that the aforesaid two points can be decided as preliminary issues only when these issues do not require any evidence for deciding them not otherwise. If the court is satisfied that evidence is required to decide such issue or issues, then it has jurisdiction to decline to decide such issue or issues as preliminary issues within the meaning of sub-rule (1) read with sub-rule (2) of R. 2 of O. 14 CPC. 8. Indisputably in the present case, the plaintiff-respondents averred in his plaint that the market value of the premises is Rs. 40,000/- which falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of trial court. The aforesaid averment is denied by defendant in his written statement alleging its market value to be Rs. 3 lacks. Whether market value of premises is Rs. 40,000/- or Rs. 3 lacks, is not a pure question of law, it requires evidence. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances off the case, the order passed by learned trial court holding that issue nos. 10 and 11 can be decided only after evidence is adduced by the parties is eminently just and proper and does not require any interference by this court under Section 115 CPC. 10. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the instant revision petition has no substance and it is hereby dismissed. Cost is made easy.Learned counsel for the parties are hereby directed to inform their clients to remain present before the trial court on 7.7.99. The learned trial court is also directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. *******