ORDER 1.Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2.Leave granted. 3. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 28-2-2002 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in Civil Order No. 1496 of 2001. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the trial court rejecting the petition under Order 14 Rule 2(b) and Order 7 Rule ll(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and directed the trial court to decide the preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the suit in the light of the observations made in the judgment. That order is challenged by filing this appeal. 4. It is the contention of the appellant that Dr Ramesh Chandra Ghosh, his father, executed a registered Will on 28-12-1978. Thereafter, on 3-2-1988 he executed last Will and testament which was not only "holograph Will" but was also duly registered. He died on 3-2-1988. As the dispute arose between the parties, the plaintiff filed probate proceedings which on contest were converted into Civil Suit No.8 of 1988 which is pending before the IVth Additional District Judge, Alipore. In that suit, the respondent filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2(b) and Order 7 Rule 7(d) CPC read with Section 151 CPC for raising the preliminary issue and dismissing the suit. That application was rejected by the trial court by judgment and order dated 18-5-2001 against which the respondent preferred revision application as stated above and that revision application was allowed. 5. It has been contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that from the reasons recorded by the High Court it is apparent that the High Court has not at all applied its mind to Order 7 Rule 11(d) which specifically provides that a plaint can be rejected "where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law". Similarly, under Order 14 Rule 2(b) also, preliminary issue could be raised if the issue relates to "bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force". 6. Similarly, under Order 14 Rule 2(b) also, preliminary issue could be raised if the issue relates to "bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force". 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and the Will as it is, the suit would be barred and, therefore, the High Court rightly directed the trial court to raise the said issue and decided it as a preliminary issue. 7. In our view, this submission cannot be accepted. Under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, there is no question of bar of the suit. In a pending suit, rights of the parties are required to be determined on the basis of evidence led by the parties with regard to their rights, interpretation of the will and the relevant decisions rendered by this Court interpreting Sections 14(1) and (2) of the Hindu Succession Act. Hence, considering the dispute a involved between the parties, it is apparent that neither Order 7 Rule 1I(d) which provides that plaint can be rejected in a case where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law, nor Order 14 Rule 2(b) could be resorted to for raising the preliminary issue as there is no bar to the suit under the provisions of any law. 8. In any case, there was no necessity of raising preliminary issue in a suit which was pending since 1988 and the suit was required to be decided as a whole as early as possible. 9. In the result, the impugned judgment and order dated 28-2-2002 passed by the High Court in Civil Order No. 1496 of 2001 is set aside. The order passed by the trial court is restored. It is made clear that the trial court would decide the suit in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order or in the order passed by the High Court. 10. The trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit and to dispose of it as early as possible. 11. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent seeks leave to withdraw IA No.1 of 2002 filed on 4-12-2002 for approaching the trial court for appropriate directions. Permission granted. 12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 10. The trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit and to dispose of it as early as possible. 11. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent seeks leave to withdraw IA No.1 of 2002 filed on 4-12-2002 for approaching the trial court for appropriate directions. Permission granted. 12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.