B. K. RATHI, J. ( 1 ) L. A. R. No. 808 of 1998 is pending in the court of XI th Addl. . District Judge, Ghaziabad. The revisionist who is opposite party in the reference moved an application to decide the issue of limitation and regarding maintainability of the reference and whether the reference is barred by Section 137 of the Indian Limitation Act as preliminary issue. The trial court has refused to decide this issue as preliminary issue. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri A. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri tarun Agarwala, learned counsel for the opposite party. ( 3 ) IT has been argued by Sri A. K. Mishra that the award was given by the collector on 27. 7. 1991. Reference in the court was made under section 18 of the act in the yea, 1998 i. e. after seven years, that, therefore, clearly the reference is barred by time and is not maintainable. It is further contended that the request for reference under section 18 can be made by the claimant within six weeks, but it was not made within six weeks. ( 4 ) IT is further contended that regarding this reference and many connected references similar question arose and, therefore, writ petition no. 3760 of 2002 was filed in the High Court which has been decided on 5. 3. 2002 by judgment Annexure-5 to the revision that division bench has directed that "we, therefore, feel persuaded to the view that in case any objection regarding competence or maintainability of reference is preferred on behalf of the petitioners before the court hearing the reference, the court will decide such objection as a preliminary issue. " ( 5 ) ON the basis of this, it has been argued that the reference court has erred in rejecting the direction of the Division bench. ( 6 ) IT appears from the judgment of the revisional court and from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party that in this case the evidence of parites has concluded and the case was fixed for hearing arguments. At the stage of argument, the revisionist moved an application 40-C for amendment maintainability that application for amendment was allowed and an issue regarding it was framed. At the stage of argument, the revisionist moved an application 40-C for amendment maintainability that application for amendment was allowed and an issue regarding it was framed. Thereafter, the arguments were heard and the case was reserved for judgment. Thereafter the application was moved by the revisionist 51-C with the copy of the above writ petition, with the request that it may be decided as preliminary issue. ( 7 ) THE trial court has also observed that the arguments regarding entire reference has been heard thrice and it has been fixed for final judgment. ( 8 ) ORDER XIV Rule 2 C. P. C. does not make it mandatory to decide an issue of law as preliminary issue. However in this case, there is direction of the Division bench. Fro m the perusal of the order of the Division Bench, it does not appear that it was brought to the notice of the court that entire evidence and the hearing has already been concluded. Therefore, a general direction has been issued by the division Bench that preliminary objection if raised regarding maintainability, it shall be decided as preliminary issue. ( 9 ) THERE does not appear to be any reason that when the hearing on the entire matter has been concluded, some issue should be decided as preliminary issue. The stage of deciding an issue as preliminary issue has already passed in the present case. Therefore, the revisionist con not get any advantage of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the present case. ( 10 ) I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The revision fails and is here by dismissed. .