Judgment :- Aggrieved over the Order dated 29.06.2006 made in I.A.No.454 of 2005 in O.S.No.68 of 2004 by the learned Subordinate Court, Ooty, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. Admittedly, at the admissions stage itself, by order dated 11. 2006, this court allowed the CRP directing the trial court to decide the jurisdictional issue of Civil Courts to try the issue. Now, the respondent has come out with the Miscellaneous Petition No:2 of 2007 for setting aside the earlier order passed in the CRP on the ground that no notice has been served on him in the CRP and he was not given an opportunity to put forth his contentions. In fact the matter was adjourned on several occasions and inspite of that there was no representation on behalf of the respondents and ultimately order dated 11. 2006 was passed. However, to give one more indulgence, the CRP was again listed for hearing and after hearing both sides the following order is passed on merits. .3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: .The revision petitioner is the defendant in the said suit. The Petitioner filed I.A.No.454 of 2005 to decide the jurisdiction of the court as preliminary issue on the ground that the property, the subject matter of the suit, belongs to Public Trust and therefore under Section 58 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Admn. of Agricultural land) bars the Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to decide or deal with any question with regard to such lands. After contest the learned Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam, came to the conclusion that the issue can be decided during trial as one of the issue and he has relied on Section 62 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural land) Act. .4. Mr. Srinath Sridevan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend it is his specific case that the suit is not maintainable since the revision petitioner is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit properties and it is only the Revenue Court could decide the claim of the respondent and hence filed the I.A., for deciding the bar of suit as a preliminary issue since a suit for possession against a cultivating tenant is not maintainable before a civil court. However, the respondents resisted the I.A., on the premise that the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 has no application and on the other and it is only the Tamil Nadu Public Trust (Regulation and Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, applies and therefore the contention that the suit is barred has no force. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner referred to Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, Sections 58 and 62 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation and Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act and also Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 5. Referring to the above said Sections in the Acts, the Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that in the present case the status of the revision petitioner as a Cultivating Tenant has never been disputed before the court below, the respondents have issued a six months notice to the petitioner under Section 106 of the T.P.Act which will prove that it is an agricultural lease and not a urban lease. According to the learned counsel, the court below dismissed the I.A., for preliminary issue solely on the ground that under Section 62 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act, the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act stood repealed, and that therefore, the bar of suit under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act would not apply. But the court below failed to see that once the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts Act was held to apply, then there was an independent bar of suit under Section 58 of that Act and therefore, irrespective of whether the T.N. Cultivating Tenants Protect Act applies, or the T.N. Public Trusts Act applies the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. According to the learned counsel, since the point involved is a pure question of law, not requiring any kind of factual enquiry, it is a fit case where the court can exercise the power under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. .6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that so far as the jurisdiction of the court is concerned it is a mixed question of law and facts and Order 14 Rule 2 CPC contemplates disposal of the suit on a preliminary point only on a question of law. .6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that so far as the jurisdiction of the court is concerned it is a mixed question of law and facts and Order 14 Rule 2 CPC contemplates disposal of the suit on a preliminary point only on a question of law. According to the learned counsel, in the instant case, the trial court has to first of all decide whether the petitioner is a ordinary tenant or a cultivating tenant. But for deciding the said question, evidence in detail is required since in the plaint it is specifically averred that the petitioner is only a tenant and not a cultivating tenant, which is also disputed by the respondent-trust. Therefore, it is for the revision petitioner to establish by evidence that he is not only a tenant but a cultivating tenant. Therefore, only after a full-fledged trial, the trial court can come to a conclusion that the petitioner is only a tenant and then proceed with the suit. However, if the trial court finds that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant based on evidence, then the trial court can order transfer of the proceeding to the Revenue Court. Therefore the issue of jurisdiction cannot at all be tried as a preliminary issue as the issue involves mixed question of law and facts. 7. Thus considering the respective submissions of the counsels appearing for either parties it is clear that it is the case of the revision petitioner that he is a cultivating tenant which is disputed by the respondent-trust. To decide the jurisdiction of the civil court, it is essential to come to a conclusion as to whether the revision petitioner is a tenant or cultivating tenant, for which a detailed enquiry is necessary wherein both oral and documentary evidence have to be adduced. Since the very jurisdiction of the civil court is challenged, the trial court is directed to decide the said issue preliminarily by undertaking a full-fledged enquiry since it involves mixed question of law and facts to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to save time. 8. Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. The connected M.P.No.2 of 2007 is also allowed.