JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The plaintiff has filed this revision againat the order of the trial court directing Issues Nos. II & III to be heard as preliminary issues. The aforesaid two Issues are as follows :-- "II. Has the court jurisdiction to entertain the suit. III. Is the suit barred by res judicata in view of the previous decision dated 5-8-95 passed in T. S. No. 105/95 of the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), First Court, Cuttack ?" 2. So far as Issue No. II is concerned, it may be necessary for the patties to adduce evidence relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court and at this stage it cannot be said that the said question is a pure question of law. Similarly, so far as Issue No. III is concerned, it is the case of the plaintiff that the decision in T. S. No. 105/95 was obtained by fraud. For deciding as to whether such a decree was obtained by fraud, it is necessary for the parties to adduce evidence. In other words, both the Issues may require some evidence to be adduced before an appropriate decision can be taken. 3. Order 14, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 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. (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 accordance with the decision on that issue." The intent and purpose of this provision is to ensure decision on all issues simultaneously. It has been held in a series of decisions of this Court that if an issue raised a mixed question of law and fact, even if relating to question of jurisdiction, such issue should nor be decided as a preliminary issue. (See Madhabananda Ray and Another Vs. Spencer and Company Ltd., Since in the present case, it cannot be said that the two issues can be decided only on the question of law and it ma; be necessary for the parties to adduce evidence, the trial court has committed a material irregularity in directing that Issues Nos. II and III should be tried as preliminary issues. The impugned order is accordingly quashed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today. 4. The Civil Revision is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. 5. Civil Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed