VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision is directed against the Order dated 15. 12. 2000 by which the Civil Judge has dismissed an application under Section 9 of the CPC read with Section 151 CPC moved by the Defendants for dismissal of the suit on the grounds that in the Suit the Plaintiff seeks to enforce a contract of personal services under which he was serving as a Priest with the Defendants. The Trial Court took note of the fact that an Application under Order VII rule 11 CPC had previously been dismissed. While disposing of the application, it had been decided by the learned Civil Judge that this question was still open to the parties to agitate. There is, however, a fleeting observation that the controvesy as to the maintainability of the Suit could only be decided after the two parties lead their respective evidence. Beyond a bare statement, no reasons are given for arriving at this conclusion. In any event, since issues had not been framed by the time of the passing of the impugned Order, this question had not arisen and the observations was, to say the least, percipitate. ( 2 ) SO far as the challenge to the impugned order dated 15. 12. 2000 is concerned on the grounds that the Petition is not maintainable in view of the amendments of Section 115, the objection is valid. The maintainability of a civil Revision has also been explained and upon pronounced in the judgment in Shiv shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur vs. Swaraj Developers and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 659 . ( 3 ) ON 10. 4. 2001 the Court had taken into consideration the fact that the Suit had been listed for the framing of Issues. Hon ble Justice s. N. Kapoor had recorded his expectation that the Trial Court will give due consideration to the objection raised by the Defendants at the time of framing of the Issues, irrespective of the application of the Petitioner for rejecting the Petition having been dismissed, for the court is supposed to apply its mind in this regard at the stage of framing of issues. Issues have been framed on 31. 1. 2004, of which Issues No. 3 and 4 read thus: "3. Whether the suit is hit by the provisions of Section 14 of the specified relief Act? OPD 4. Issues have been framed on 31. 1. 2004, of which Issues No. 3 and 4 read thus: "3. Whether the suit is hit by the provisions of Section 14 of the specified relief Act? OPD 4. Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the defendant No. 7 is applicable to the facts of the present case? OPP" ( 4 ) INDUBITABLY a reflection upon the Issues does not directly fall for determination in the present Civil Revision. In view, however, of the observations in the Order dated 10. 4. 2001 it would be a waste of time, and a proliferation of proceeding, if the present Revision is dismissed merely as not maintainable, despite hearing arguments for a considerable period of time. ( 5 ) AFTER framing the Issues on 31. 1. 2004, the Civil Judge has fixed the case for evidence. He has not considered whether Issues No. 3 and 4 can be treated as preliminary issues. It is a salutary practice for the Court to treat an issue as preliminary one so long as it does not require the recording of evidence, especially where it goes to the root of the maintainability of the action. This is the mandate under Rule 2 of Order 14 of the cpc. In the event that the Preliminary objection as to the maintainability of a suit is sustained, judicial time in recording evidence etc. will immediately be saved. Even if some activism is required, the Court should not feel inhibited from passing and Orders which are likely to narrow down litigation. There is ample authority of the Apex Court that revision Petitions can be treated and transformed into Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) I refrain from making any observation as to whether Issues No. 3 and 4 should be tried as preliminary issues. The Orders dated 31. 1. 2004 copies of which have been handed over by learned counsel for the parties does not address this question. The present revision is disposed of with a direction to the civil Judge to consider whether Issues No. 3 and 4 should be treated as preliminary issues, and disposed of prior to Trial.