JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—This is defendant’s writ petition. 2. A suit under Section 229 B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed being suit No. 453 of 2005 by the plaintiff respondent herein. In the said suit, the defendant raised a plea that the issue Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 may be decided as preliminary issues. The said application having been rejected by the two Courts below, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. 4. Now, time has come that all the issues should be decided simultaneously as it will facilitate early disposal of the suit. Reference can be made to various judgments of the Apex Court. In its one judgment it noted the following observation of Privy Council : 5. Before more than hundred years, the Privy Council in Tarakant v. Puddomoney, (1866) 10 MIA 476, favoured this approach. Speaking for the Judicial Committee, Lord Turner stated : “The Courts below, in appealable cases, by forbearing from deciding on all the issues joined, not infrequently oblige this Committee to recommend that a cause be remanded which might otherwise be finally decided on appeal. This is certainly a serious evil to the parties litigant, as it may involve the expense of a second appeal as well as that of another hearing below. It is much to be desired, therefore, that in appealable cases the Courts below should, as far as may be practicable, pronounce their opinions on all the important points”. (emphasis supplied) 6. The above principle has been consistently followed. Supreme Court dealing with the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 (prior to the amendment Act of 1976), in Major S.S. Khanna v. Brigadiar F.J. Dillion, (1964) 4 SCR 409 , stated; “Under Order 14 Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined. The jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from the issues of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the Court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of law alone, but the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues. Normally all the issues in a suit should be tried by the Court; not to do so, especially when the decision on issues even of law depend upon the decision of issues of fact, would result in a lop-sided trial of the suit”. (emphasis supplied) 7. The Law Commission also considered the question and did not favour the tendency of deciding some issues as preliminary issues. Dealing with Rule 2 of Order XIV (before the amendment), the Commission stated; “This rule has led to one difficulty. Where a case can be disposed of on a preliminary point (issue) of law, often the Courts do not inquire into the merits, with the result that when, on an appeal against the finding on the preliminary issue the decision of the Court on that issue is reversed, the case has to be remanded to the Court of first instance for trial on the other issues. This causes delay. It is considered that this delay should be eliminated, by providing that a Court must give judgment on all issues, excepting, of course, where the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction or where the suit is barred by any law for the time being in force”. (emphasis supplied) 8. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. No order as to costs. ————