( 1 ) RESPONDENTS herein filed o. S. No. 83 of 2004, in the Court of Senior civil Judge, Bhongir, for the relief of declaration to the effect that they have right of pre-emption, vis-a-vis the petitioners herein, in the matter of transfer of the suit schedule properties for fixation of the market value, thereof, and to declare the sale deed dated 15-7-2004, as null and void and not binding on them. ( 2 ) THE respondents pleaded that themselves and the petitioners have common origin and that Section 22 of the Hindu succession Act (for short "the Act") applies for any alienation, proposed to be undertaken by them. ( 3 ) THE petitioners filed written statement, denying the allegations of the respondents. They pleaded that themselves and the respondents are not class-I heirs of the same ancestor. It was asserted that the suit schedule property has since been sold. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues, including the one, as to whether the respondents herein are entitled to enforce the right of pre-emption in respect of the suit schedule property (issue No. l ). ( 4 ) THE petitioners filed LA. No. 708 of 2005, with a prayer to decide issue No. 1 separately, and as a preliminary issue. The trial Court dismissed the application, through order dated 16-12-2005. Hence, this revision. ( 5 ) SRI Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that even if the contents of the plaint are taken on their face value, they do not constitute any basis for grant of relief, contemplated under section 22 of the Act. He contends that when the very relationship and statutes of the parties is in dispute, there is no necessity for the trial Court, to undertake full trial, and deciding the preliminary issue would have avoided wastage of time and expenditure, for both the parties. ( 6 ) SRI B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that any finding on issue No. 1 needs not only recording of evidence, but also appreciation of the matter from various angles, and that, issue No. l would cover the entire controversy in the suit. ( 7 ) IT is true that CPC permits adjudication of certain issues, as a preliminary measures, where answer to such issues would put an end to the proceedings. ( 7 ) IT is true that CPC permits adjudication of certain issues, as a preliminary measures, where answer to such issues would put an end to the proceedings. Order XIV C. P. C. provides for the framing of issues and points out the distinction between the issues of fact and issues of law. The purport of the scheme under order XIV C. P. C. , as well as practice adopted by the Courts is that, it is mostly the questions of law that can be decided as preliminary ones. Where the finding on an issue needs recording of evidence and verification of facts, undertaking the adjudication of the same, as a preliminary issue, would result in duplication of the work. The trial Court would find itself in an uncertain situation, in the matter of restricting the oral evidence, in relation to an issue, which is taken up for preliminary adjudication. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the issue No. 1 is to the following effect : "whether the plaintiffs are entitled to enforce right of pre-emption in respect of the suit schedule property against the defendants as prayed for" in fact, this issue takes in its fold, the core of the entire controversy, in the suit. An answer to this would need recording of evidence, as well as extensive examination of relevant facts and questions of law. Therefore, the same could not have been treated, as a preliminary issue. The trial court referred to the relevant provisions and furnished cogent reasons, as to how the request of the petitioners cannot be acceded to. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. ( 9 ) THE C. R. P. is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit itself, within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.