JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has beseech-ed to quash and set aside the order dated 15th September, 2008 whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Tijara, District Alwar framed only three preliminary issues. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that on 15th September, 2008, the learned trial Court framed only three legal issues, whereas the Court ought to have framed all the issues based on the pleadings of the parties to decide the dispute arising in the suit. The provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 of CPC do not contemplate to frame the issues in parts. Rule 2 (1) of Order 14 of CPC envisages that, "notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-Rule (2) pronounce judgment on all issues, which suggests that the Court ought to have framed all the issues based on the pleadings of the parties. Thereafter if required the Court could decide the legal issues first if they were related to the jurisdiction of the Court or the suit was barred by any law for the time being in force. In view of this legal position, it has become necessary to direct the learned trial Court to frame all the issues based on the pleadings of the parties. 4. E converse the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned trial Court framed these three legal issues pursuant to the order dated 13th August, 2008 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Revision Petition No. 100/2008 titled as M/s Thapar Concast Limited v. Vijay Kaushik & ors. In this Case, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the trial Court with regard to framing issue on insufficient Court fee on the plaint as well as non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint and to decide these issues first as preliminary issues. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper, which warrants no intervention. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper, which warrants no intervention. 6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned all the relevant orders, it becomes imperative to reproduce Rule 2 Order 14 of CPC which reads thus: Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.-(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) 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 an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue] 7. Rule 2(1) of Order 14 CPC contemplates that the Court shall frame all the issues and pronounce the judgment thereon subject to the provisions of Sub-Rule 2. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 2 Order 14 CPC further contemplates that 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 could be disposed of on an issue of law only, the Court could try that issue first if that arose relating to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose could, if it thought fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue had been determined, and could deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. The pith and substance of the scheme of Rule 2 Order 14 CPC is that the Court is required to frame all the issues based on the pleadings of the parties and if thereafter the Court found fit to decide only legal issues and the case could be decided based on those issues, the Court ought to have tried those legal issues first. Thus, in view of the provisions of Rule 2 Order 14 CPC, it becomes necessary to frame all the issues based on the pleadings of the parties but the learned trial Court is found to have scribbled only two lines' order-sheet which reveals about framing of only preliminary issues and adjourning the case for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. It is not shown in the order-sheet as to why did the Court think it necessary to frame only preliminary issues. No reason has been assigned by the learned trial Court for framing these issues. Hence, the impugned order is not found to be proper and apt. It is rather blank and non-speaking and the same deserves to be set aside. 8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 15th September, 2008 stands set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to frame all the issues based on pleadings of the parties and thereafter to proceed with the trial of suit in accordance with the provisions of law. 9. The learned trial Court is further directed to try the suit expeditiously as the same has been pending since 2007.Writ petition allowed. *******