ORDER : THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. 1. In a suit for eviction of petitioner/tenant, respondent/plaintiff/landlord claimed that it is a Hindu Religious Endowment entitled to get exemption from Act 2 of 1965 as per notification dated 19.11.1993. In answer to that, petitioner/tenant contended that respondent is a private temple which belonged to Babu Pandith Govinda Pandith. An issue regarding maintainability of the suit was raised. Petitioner produced Ext.B1, copy of the plaint filed by the respondent in another case to show that the temple in question is a family temple. Learned Additional Munsiff, Kochi found that (O.S.No.251 of 2009) there is nothing in Ext.B1 to show that respondent is a family temple. Instead, Ext.B1 revealed that temple belonged to the Maharashtra Brahmin Community and hence it cannot be said that it is a family temple. Learned Additional Munsiff observed that as per notification dated 19.11.1993 exemption is granted to religious and charitable endowment from the purview of Act 2 of 1965 and hence the suit is maintainable. That order is under challenge at the instance of petitioner/tenant. 2. Learned counsel submits that the question whether respondent is a private temple or, is a Hindu Religious Endowment can be decided only after recording evidence since it involves question of fact also and hence learned Munsiff was not right in deciding the question as a preliminary issue under Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code"). It is therefore prayed that the impugned finding may be set aside and the question may be relegated to the trial stage for decision. Learned counsel for respondent contended that there is no reason to interfere with the finding. 3. Under Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code, the Court is required to pronounce judgment on all issues notwithstanding that case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue but, that is subject to sub rule (ii) of the said Rule which states that where the suit could be disposed of on an issue of law only relating to the jurisdiction of the Court or, a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, it is open to the court to dispose of the suit on such preliminary issue. In the present case it would appear that maintainability of the suit would depend on the question whether respondent is a private temple or is a Hindu Religious Endowment. That in my view involves question of fact as well. In that view of the matter the proper course was to decide the issue regarding maintainability of the suit in the course of trial after recording evidence. 4. Resultantly this civil revision is allowed. The impugned finding of learned Additional Munsiff, Kochi in O.S.No.251 of 2009 is set aside and the issue regarding maintainability is relegated to be decided while the suit is being disposed of. If the pre-trial steps are over, learned Munsiff may expedite trial and disposal of the suit.