Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. In view of the law laid down in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society Nagpur v. Swaraj Development and Ors., J.T. 2003(4) S.C. 255 the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable. 2. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel submits that the present revision petition be treated as petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The prayer made by the learned counsel is allowed. 3. The present petition has been filed by defendant No. 2 M/s Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. The order dated April 21, 1994 passed by the learned trial Court has been impugned. 4. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for restraining defendant No. 1 from releasing the amount of Rs. 1,94,000/- to defendant No. 2 on the basis of specimen bank guarantee dated January 27, 1992. It was claimed that the aforesaid bank guarantee could not have been encashed by defendant No. 2. 5. The defendants appeared. A separate written statement was filed by defendant No. 2. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 2, the territorial jurisdiction of Ludhiana Court was challenged. It was submitted by the said defendant that in fact cause of action, if any, had arisen to the plaintiff at Delhi and, therefore, Ludhiana Court had no territorial jurisdiction. 6. The learned trial Court framed a number of issues. Issue No. 3 read as follows; "Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit." 7. Subsequently, two applications were filed by defendant No. 2 before the learned trial Court. One application was under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC to the effect that the onus of issue No. 3 had wrongly been placed upon defendant No. 2 and the same should have been placed upon the plaintiff. This application was not contested by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the onus of proving issue No. 3 was shifted from defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff. Another application was filed claiming that since issue No. 3 pertained to the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Ludhiana, therefore, the same should be treated as a preliminary issue. This application was contested by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid issue required evidence and, therefore, could not have been treated as a preliminary issue. Another application was filed claiming that since issue No. 3 pertained to the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Ludhiana, therefore, the same should be treated as a preliminary issue. This application was contested by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid issue required evidence and, therefore, could not have been treated as a preliminary issue. The learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated April 21, 1994 rejected the prayer made by defendant No. 2 and held that the said issue No. 3 could not be treated to be a preliminary issue. 8. Shri I.K. Mehta. the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in para No. 13 of the plaint, the following averments had been made by the petitioner in the plaint: "That the specimen bank guarantee was deposited at Ludhiana, the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff at Ludhiana; the plaintiff works for gain and its registered and Admn. Office is situated at Ludhiana, hence, this Honble Court had the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit." 9. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, Shri Mehta has submitted that from the case set up by the plaintiff himself it was clear-that it could not be stated that the cause of action or any part thereof had arisen to the plaintiff at Ludhiana and, therefore, apparently, the civil Court at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Shri Mehta has further maintained that even if some evidence was required to be led by the plaintiff to support his plea that the civil Court at Ludhiana had the jurisdiction, still the said issue should have been treated as preliminary issue since it concerned the jurisdiction of the Court. According to Shri Mehta after the trial of the suit, it the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the civil Court at Ludhiana has no territorial jurisdiction then the entire effort and expenses incurred by the parties would go waste. 10. In support of his contention Shri Mehta has relied upon judgments in the cases of Meharban and Anr. v. Punjab Wakf Board and Anr. 1998(1) P.L.J. 640 and Harinder Kumar v. Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. 1998(2) P.L.J. 297. 11. I have considered the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 10. In support of his contention Shri Mehta has relied upon judgments in the cases of Meharban and Anr. v. Punjab Wakf Board and Anr. 1998(1) P.L.J. 640 and Harinder Kumar v. Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. 1998(2) P.L.J. 297. 11. I have considered the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. I find that this Court had occasion to deal with the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 Sub-rule (2) CPC in the aforementioned cases. Dealing with the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Court, it was held by this Court that although the aforesaid question was always a mixed question of facts and law but the same should be treated as a preliminary issue. Even it some evidence was required to be led in support of the said issue by the parties, still it would be proper to treat the aforesaid issue as a preliminary issue. The observations made by the Court in the aforesaid authority of Harinders case (supra) may be noticed as follows: "Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 clearly shows that the case or a part thereof may be disposed of on a issue of law only and that issue of law may be tried as a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force and postpone the settlement of other issues until after that issue has been determined and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. It is not disputed that in the present case issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court is an issue of law. It cannot be also disputed that in case the said issue of territorial jurisdiction is decided in favour of the defendants, the suit itself will be dismissed and the defendant then will not be required to undergo the ordeal of trial. No doubt, it may be a mixed question of facts and law; nevertheless where in the event of defendants succeeding on this issue, it could avoid the ordeal of trial. It will be, therefore, just and proper that this issue be treated as a preliminary issue. No doubt, it may be a mixed question of facts and law; nevertheless where in the event of defendants succeeding on this issue, it could avoid the ordeal of trial. It will be, therefore, just and proper that this issue be treated as a preliminary issue. Keeping in view me facts and circumstances of the present case, under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14, the learned trial Court has come to this conclusion that the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction should be decided as a preliminary issue. It cannot be said that the said opinion is based on extraneous or irrelevant material. I am, therefore, of the opinion that such an order does not call for interference by this court in its jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The view f have taken finds support from a Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court in Mitsubishi France v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and Anr. A.I.R. 1985 Mad. 300 and two decisions of this Court in Uggarsain v. Massu and Anr., C.R. 3719 of 1996, decided on 22.4.1997 and Meharhban and Anr. v. Punjab Wakf Board and Anr., C.R. 2372 of 1997 decided on 30.3.1998 (1998(1) P.L.J. 640). Here reference may also be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1240. In this case it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court that the Court should decide the question of jurisdiction in the first instance. It is, however, made clear that the learned trial Court shall afford the parties opportunity to lead evidence if they so desire, before deciding the said issues." 12. After having given my thoughtful consideration to the entice matter, I find merit in the present petition. As per the law laid down in Harinders case (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the issue of territorial jurisdiction as framed by the learned trial Court should be treated as a preliminary issue. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated April 21, 1994 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. It is further directed that the learned trial Court shall now treat issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated April 21, 1994 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. It is further directed that the learned trial Court shall now treat issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue. Since proceedings in the case have been stayed and the matter has remained pending sufficiently for a long time in the Court, the learned trial Court shall proceed with the suit in the light of the observations made above, as expeditiously as possible and conclude the same within a period of two years from the date a certified copy of this order is received.