ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2001 passed by the third Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry in I.A.No.2104 of 2001 in O.S.No.626 of 1999, allowing the application filed under O.14, Rule 2, C.P.C to take up the issue of jurisdiction as the preliminary issue before going into other issues. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. 2. For disposal of this revision, we may briefly refer to the relevant facts: The dry land bearing S.No.209/3-A having an extent of 6 Hectares 11 acres 32 cents situated in Pillaichavady and Kalapet Villages in Oulgaret Commune were acquired by the Government for the purpose of establishment of Central University Phase IV under Award No.1/87 dated 25.3.1987. An amount of Rs.2,56,990 was awarded as compensation for the lands acquired by the Government. The Land Acquisition Officer could not decide the rightful ownership of the acquired lands, ordered the compensation amount to be deposited in Civil Court under Sec.31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Reference was made under Sec.30 of the Land Acquisition Act for deciding rightful ownership and appointment of the compensation amount. In L.A.O.P.No.109 of 1987, learned Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry held that respondents 4 to 7 and 11 to 17 are the rightful owners and each of them are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,362.85. The balance amount of Rs.2,08,999.55 was ordered to be remained in the Civil Court deposit until the ownership in respect of the remaining extent are decided since the other claimants have not proved their title by way of filing the documents or adducing any evidence. 3. Muthulakshmi-10th respondent in L.A.O.P.No.109 of 1987 has filed the suit in O.S.No.626 of 1997 for declaration that the plaintiffis entitled for the enhanced compensation. Case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff purchased one kani 30 kuzhies and 2 vecsams under the sale deed dated 17.9.1973. The plaintiff is entitled to that extent as absolute owner and that she is in possession of the same till it was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. According to the plaintiff, the 12th defendant - Revenue Officer- cum-Land Acquisition Officer has been arranging to pay the entire compensation amount to defendants 1 to 11 totally ignoring the plaintiffs right and interest. Further, according to the plaintiff she had no notice of the proceedings initiated by the defendants 12 and 13 for payment of compensation. According to the plaintiff, the 12th defendant - Revenue Officer- cum-Land Acquisition Officer has been arranging to pay the entire compensation amount to defendants 1 to 11 totally ignoring the plaintiffs right and interest. Further, according to the plaintiff she had no notice of the proceedings initiated by the defendants 12 and 13 for payment of compensation. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the enhanced compensation for 1 kani 30 kuzhies and 2 veesams; for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 12 to 14 from paying the enhanced compensation to defendants 1 to 11; for Mandatory Injunction, directing the defendants to pay enhanced compensation for plaintiff’s interest only to the plaintiff. 4. 12th defendant - Revenue Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Pondicherry has elaborately filed the written statement inter alia contending that the Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry has ordered in L.A.O.P.No.109 of 1987 that defendants 1 to 11 are the rightful owners of the lands covering an extent of 14 acres, 16 cents and directed the payment of amount of Rs.4,362.85 to each one of them. It is the contention of the defendant that balance amount of Rs.2,08,999.55 was ordered to be kept in the Civil Court deposit until the ownership in respect of remaining extent of land is decided by the Court. Learned Second Additional Judge gave liberty to the parties to reopen the proceedings by furnishing fresh documents and evidence to prove their title. Without filing any appeal against that Judgment, the plaintiffhas filed the suit. The plaintiff has no right to reopen the same issue by invoking the jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court. The District Munsif Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. Along with the written statement, D-12 has filed I.A.No.2104 of 2001 under O.14, Rule 2, C.P.C. to take up the question of jurisdiction as the preliminary issue. According to the 12th defendant, the plaintiff has no legal right to set aside the judicial order dated 13.1.1989 and 6.4.1992 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in L.A.O.P.No.109 of 1997. 6. The plaintiff has raised strong objection to the petition contending that it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to decide the issue relating to the jurisdiction or the legal bar to the suit as the preliminary suit. 6. The plaintiff has raised strong objection to the petition contending that it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to decide the issue relating to the jurisdiction or the legal bar to the suit as the preliminary suit. It was alleged that the words “it may try” in Rule 2(2) of O.14, C.P.C. is clearly indicative of the fact that the Court has the discretion to take up any issue as preliminary issue and that no duty is cast upon the Court to decide any preliminary issue. 7. Allowing the application, learned District Munsif decided to take up the issue relating to the jurisdiction as the preliminary issue. The Court found that the issue relating to the jurisdiction to try the suit is the main and material question and that the same is to be taken up as the preliminary issue. 8. Aggrieved over the order of the District Munsif in determining to take up the issue relating to jurisdiction as preliminary issue, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has preferred this civil revision petition. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that under O.14, Rule 1, C.P.C. the Court is to pronounce the Judgment on all issues. When that being so, learned District Munsif was not right in taking up the issue relating to the jurisdiction as the preliminary issue. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that it is only the discretion of the Court to try the issue as the preliminary issue and the lower Court was not right in allowing the application and take up the issue as the preliminary issue at the instance of the defendant. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the trial Court has rightly found that the issue relating to the jurisdiction has to be tried as the primary issue and that the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity warranting interference. 10. In the order to take up the issue regarding the jurisdiction as the preliminary issue whether there is improper exercise of discretion and whether the impugned order suffers from material irregularity warranting interference is the only point that arises for consideration in this revision petition. 11. O.14, Rule 1, C.P.C., makes it obligatory for the Court to pronounce judgment on all issues. 11. O.14, Rule 1, C.P.C., makes it obligatory for the Court to pronounce judgment on all issues. But, it is subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2) which gives a discretion to the Court to frame issue of law only if it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the institution of the suit itself. The intention of the legislature as is apparent from the wording O.14, Rule 2, 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 a preliminary issue if the Court thinks that the suit should be disposed of on that issue. 12. The trial of an issue in the first instance even as to the jurisdiction or statutory Bar to the institution of the suit being now discretionary. In a case where the Court decides to treat an issue as the preliminary issue it has to try it first and not reserve it to be taken up for argument at the time when the suit itself would be tried. In those cases where the question relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or to a bar to the institution of the suit itself for instance where the suit is expressly barred i.e., whether there is a statutory bar like bar under the Co-operative Societies Act, Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act, Land Encroachment Act and such other Acts, the Court had to dispose of the suit on the finding given on the preliminary issue. Thus, under O.14, Rule 2, C.P.C determining the question of jurisdiction or statutory bar is discretionary for the Court to decide the issue of law as preliminary issue or decide it along with other issues raised in the Suit. 13. Exercising the discretion under O.14, Rule 2, C.P.C, learned District Munsif has ordered to take up the issue relating to the question of jurisdictiion as the preliminary issue. By ordering to take up the issue relating to the jurisdiction as the preliminary issue, there is no improper exercise of discretion. 14. Admittedly, in the judgment in L.A. O.P.No.109 of 1987, the respondents 4 to 7 and 11 to 17 have been declared as the rightful owners of the land to an extent of 1 hec. By ordering to take up the issue relating to the jurisdiction as the preliminary issue, there is no improper exercise of discretion. 14. Admittedly, in the judgment in L.A. O.P.No.109 of 1987, the respondents 4 to 7 and 11 to 17 have been declared as the rightful owners of the land to an extent of 1 hec. 14 acres 16 cents and each of them were entitled to an amount of Rs.4,362.85 totalling Rs.47,991.35. The balance amount of Rs.2,08,999.55 was ordered to be kept in the Civil Court deposit. The parties were given liberty to reopen the matter by adducing documentary and oral evidence. Thus, liberty was given to the parties to reopen the matter in L.A.O.P.No.109 of 1987. But, the plaintiff appears to have filed the suit seeking for declaration that she is entitled to the enhanced compensation and also for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to pay the enhanced compensation for the plaintiff’s interest only to her. In view of the order passed by the Second Additional District Judge in L.A.O.P.No.109 of 1987, the question of maintainability of the suit in O.S.No.626 of 1999 is writ large and was rightly ordered to be taken up as the preliminary issue. 15. Under O.14, Rule 2, C.P.C, the trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion in taking up the issue relating to the jurisdiction as the preliminary issue. Exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Sec.115, C.P.C. the High Court would interfere with the Impugned order only if Subordinate Court appears: (1) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (2) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (3) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 16. None of the above instances arise in this case in ordering to take up the issue relating to the jurisdiction as the preliminary issue. There is no improper exercise of discretion warranting interference. The civil revision petition is bound to fail. The suit is of the year 1999. Learned District Munsif is directed to take up the preliminary issue-relating to the jurisdiction and after affording sufficient opportunities to both parties determine the issue within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 17. For the reasons stated above, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Learned District Munsif is directed to take up the preliminary issue-relating to the jurisdiction and after affording sufficient opportunities to both parties determine the issue within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 17. For the reasons stated above, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Learned District Munsif is directed to take up the preliminary issue - relating to the jurisdiction and after affording sufficient opportunities to both parties determine the issue within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.13720 of 2002 is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.