Judgment :- These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders dated 22.08.2003 passed by the District Munsif, Tiruvarur in I.A.No.112 of 2003 in O.S.No.60 of 1996; I.A.No.113 of 2003 in O.S.No.266 of 1996 and I.A.No.141 of 2003 in O.S.No.69 of 2001, allowing the Petitions filed by the First Defendant under Or.14 Rule 2(b) C.P.C ordering to take up the issue of maintainability of the Suits as the Preliminary Issue. The Plaintiff Devasthanam - Arulmighu Thiagaraja Swami Devasthanam is the Revision Petitioner. 2. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is the owner of 26,974 Sq.Ft in T.S.Nos.588 to 594 within the Thiruvarur Municipal limits. The Suit locality is known as Pavadai Thoppu in Thanjavur Road, Tiruvarur. The Suit Property was endowed to the Abisheka Kattalai of the Plaintiff’s Devasthanam under Inam Title Deed No.951. The Acquisition proceedings of the Government of Tamil Nadu in the Gazette dated 26.11.1986 would also show that the Suit Property belongs to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff Devasthanam was given Paguthi portions of the Property to the Defendants. One Ramanathan Chettiar of Devakottai was a Lessee of the Suit Property and other Properties under the Plaintiff’s Devasthanam from the year 1950 under a Registered Lease Deed dated 07.12.1951 for a period of five years. The said Ramanathan Chettiar was in arrears of rent to Plaintiff Devasthanam and hence, a Suit was filed against him in O.S.No.159 of 1975 before the District Munsif, Tiruvarur and the same was decreed. After the decree in O.S.No.159 of 1975, the Plaintiff Devasthanam took possession of the property from Ramanathan Chettiar on 01.02.1975. Earlier, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit against Ramanathan Chettiar and M/s. Raman and Raman in O.S.No.304 of 1959 before the District Munsif, Tiruvarur for recovery of possession of the Suit Properties and others and the same was compromised between the parties. As per the compromise, Ramanathan Chettiar should execute a Regular Lease Deed to the Temple on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- for a period of five years and in case of failure, the Suit shall stand decreed as prayed for. Ramanathan Chettiar did not execute the Lease Deed as per the compromise. Therefore, the Plaintiff took possession of the property on 01.02.1975. The said Ramanathan Chettiar had sub-leased the Suit Property to several persons and that he was never in actual possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. Ramanathan Chettiar did not execute the Lease Deed as per the compromise. Therefore, the Plaintiff took possession of the property on 01.02.1975. The said Ramanathan Chettiar had sub-leased the Suit Property to several persons and that he was never in actual possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. Ramanathan Chettiar did not have any connection with the property after 1975. The Defendants claim to be in possession under the said Ramanathan Chettiar, who himself has no right over the Suit Property. The Defendants are bound to hand over the possession. Hence, the Plaintiff Devasthanam has filed the Suit to pass a decree for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff’s possession and alternatively praying for Declaration that the Plaintiff Devasthanam is the owner of the property and also the Defendants are not the Tenants under the Plaintiff. Suits were also filed for removal of super structure put up by the Defendants and for delivery of vacant possession. 3. In all the Three Suits, the First Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that Ramanathan Chettiar had leased out Door No.23 to one M/s.Raman and Raman on rent and was collecting the Rent. Similarly, Ramanathan Chettiar had leased the other properties with super structure thereon to the other Defendants. The Defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective portion. The Defendants claimed to be in possession of the Suit Properties tracing their title through the Sale Deed. The Defendants have interalia contended that the Temple has no right and the Temple has lost its rights over the Suit Properties. 4. The Defendants have also filed Additional Written Statement challenging the maintainability of the Suits. The Suits were filed by Executive Officer of Plaintiff Devasthanam. According to the Defendants, the Executive Officer has no right to file the Suit and only the Trustee alone can take legal proceedings in respect of Kattalai properties. In the Additional Written Statement, it is further alleged that the Plaintiff Temple has its own Board of Trustees. It is only the Board of Trustees which can initiate proceedings for an onbehalf of the Temple. Board of Trustees alone can sue and be sued. The Executive Officer has no power or authority to file the Suit. 5. In the Additional Written Statement, it is further alleged that the Plaintiff Temple has its own Board of Trustees. It is only the Board of Trustees which can initiate proceedings for an onbehalf of the Temple. Board of Trustees alone can sue and be sued. The Executive Officer has no power or authority to file the Suit. 5. In all the Three Suits, I.A.Nos.112,113 and 141 of 2003 have been filed by the Defendants under Or.14(2)(b) and Sec.151 C.P.C praying to take up the additional issues 1 and 2 as the preliminary issues. The additional issues 1 and 2 relating to the maintainability of the Suits are as follows: Alleging that the Suits filed by the Executive Officer of the Temple are not maintainable, the First Defendant in the Suits have filed these Petitions to take up the above issues as the preliminary issues. 6. The Respondent / Plaintiff Temple resisted the Applications contending that the issue involved is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be taken up as the preliminary issue. It is further alleged that the Board of Trustees is not in existence and therefore, there is no question of instituting the Suit / legal proceedings by the Trustees. Hence, as far as the Plaintiff Temple is concerned, no assignment of power to the Executive Officer is necessary for filing the Suits by the Executive Officer. 7. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, learned District Munsif ordered taking up the above additional issues as Preliminary Issues. The Trial Court was of the view that the issue regarding the maintainability of the Suit is a question of law and ordered the same to be taken up as the preliminary issues. Aggrieved over the order of taking up the Additional issues regarding the maintainability of the Suit as the preliminary issues, the Plaintiff Devasthanam has preferred these Civil Revision Petitions. 8. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that the issue regarding the maintainability of the Suits filed by the Executive Officer is a mixed question of law and fact and is not a pure question of law and the Trial Court erred in ordering taking up those issues as the preliminary issues. 9. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in SRI ARTHANAREESWARAR OF TIRUCHENGODE ..VS.. 9. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in SRI ARTHANAREESWARAR OF TIRUCHENGODE ..VS.. T.M.MUTHUSWAMY PADAYACHI ETC., AND OTHERS ( 2003 (1) L.W. 386 ), learned counsel for the Respondent / First Defendant has submitted that in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench the Trial Court rightly ordered the issue regarding the maintainability of the Suit as the preliminary issue. Contending that the Suit for recovery of property instituted by the Executive Officer onbehalf of the Temple is not maintainable, learned counsel for the Respondent / First Defendant has submitted that by ordering the issues to be taken up as the preliminary issues, there is proper exercise of discretion and there is no reason warranting interference. 10. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the Trial Court was right in ordering taking up additional issues regarding the maintainability of the Suit as the preliminary issues and whether the Impugned Orders suffer from any material irregularity warranting interference. 11. Under Or.14 R.2 C.P.C, the Court must give Judgments on all issues. But, when the issue of law relates to jurisdiction of the Court or a bar of Suit, the Court may postpone Settlement of every issues until the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court or bar of Suit as preliminary issue has been determined. Thereafter, the Court may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision of the preliminary issue. Or.14 R.2 C.P.C makes it obligatory for the Court to pronounce the Judgment on all issues. But, it is subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) which gives the discretion to the Court to frame issue of law and determine the same as primary issue only if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or to a bar to the institution of the Suit itself. The intention of the Legislature as is apparent from the wording Or.14 R.2 C.P.C is clear that the disposal of the Suit should be expedited. It has therefore been left to the discretion of the Court to frame an issue of jurisdiction as the preliminary issue if the Court thinks that the Suit should be disposed of on that issue. Thus, it is purely discretion of the Court whether to treat an issue as the preliminary issue. 12. Now, the additional issues are relating to the maintainability of the Suits filed by the Executive Officer. Thus, it is purely discretion of the Court whether to treat an issue as the preliminary issue. 12. Now, the additional issues are relating to the maintainability of the Suits filed by the Executive Officer. Since it relate to the maintainability of the Suits, learned District Munsif rightly ordered to take up those issues as the preliminary issues. 13. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that there is no Board of Trustees for the Plaintiff Temple and that under such circumstances of the case, the issue regarding maintainability of the Suits filed by the Executive Officer is not a pure question of law but is only a mixed fact and law and the same cannot be decided as the preliminary issue. As noted earlier, trying any issue as the preliminary issue is purely discretion of the Court. When the Court has exercised the discretion to try the issue as the preliminary issue, it cannot be said to be improper exercise of discretion. The Impugned Orders ordering to try preliminary issue first do not suffer from any infirmity. In view of the contentions urged by the Revision Petitioner – Devasthanam, the Trial Court is directed to afford sufficient opportunity to the Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff Devasthanam to advance its arguments on the preliminary issues. 14. With the above direction, the orders dated 22.08.2003 passed by the District Munsif, Tiruvarur in I.A.No.112 of 2003 in O.S.No.60 of 1996; I.A.No.113 of 2003 in O.S.No.266 of 1996 and I.A.No.141 of 2003 in O.S.No.69 of 2001 are confirmed and these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur is directed to take up the preliminary issue and dispose of the same upon hearing both the parties. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.Nos.21106 to 21108 of 2003 are also dismissed.