JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioners (original defendants) challenging the order dated 31.3.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.),Chirawa, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court) in Civil Suit No.3/99, whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioners filed under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC. 2. Heard learned counsel Mr. LL Gupta for the petitioners. Nobody appears for the respondent No.2-plaintiff though duly served. 3. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No.2 plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the declaration and injunction in respect of the land in question before the trial court. The petitioners-defendants had filed an application seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.The said application came to be rejected by the trial court vide order dated 24.5.1999. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had preferred the revision petition being No. 1244/99 before this court, which petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 9.9.1999. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioners-defendants filed written statements and the trial court framed issues. One of the issues framed by the trial court was with regard to the jurisdiction of the court. The petitioners-defendants moved an application under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC requesting the court to decide the issue No.6 as a preliminary issue. The trial court vide order dated 27.1.2005 rejected the said application, against which the petitioners had preferred the writ petition No.2380/2005 before this court. This court vide order dated 15.4.2005 allowed the petition setting aside the order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the trial court and remitted the matter back to the trial court for deciding the application of the defendants afresh in view of Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC. The trial court again rejected the said application of the petitioners-defendants vide impugned order dated 31.3.2006 by holding that the defendants had not challenged the earlier order dated 24.5.1999 and therefore the application under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC was also required to be rejected. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel Mr. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel Mr. LL Gupta for the petitioners has submitted that the trial court has thoroughly misconceived the orders passed by this court in revision petition as well as in the writ petition and had rejected the application of the petitioners filed under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC only on the ground that petitioners had not challenged the order dated 24.5.1999 passed by the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, whereas the petitioners had already challenged the same by way of filing the revision petition. According to Mr. Gupta, the issue of jurisdiction could be decided as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC as directed by the High Court while allowing the writ petition No. 2380/2005 and therefore the impugned order passed by the trial court is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and to the documents on record, more particularly, the impugned order, it transpires that after the remand of the matter by the High Court to the trial court, the trial court by impugned order has dismissed the application of the petitioners-defendants filed under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC only on the ground that the petitioners had not challenged the order dated 24.5.1999, which ground appears to be exfacie not correct inasmuch as the petitioners had already challenged the said order by filing the revision petition before this court. It is true that the revision petition was rejected by the High Court vide order dated 9.9.1999, however it was observed in the said order that the objection with regard to the valuation and jurisdiction could be raised by the defendants by filing written statements. It is also pertinent to note that after framing the issues by the trial court, the defendants had filed the application under Order 14 Rule 2 for deciding the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, however, the said application was also dismissed against which the writ petition was preferred and the High Court had allowed the said writ petition remanding the matter back to the trial court for deciding the said application afresh under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC. The trial court, instead of deciding the application in the light of the observations made by the High court in the order dated 15.4.2005, has dismissed the application without considering the said provisions, and only on the ground that the defendants had not challenged the order dated 24.5.1999. The impugned order passed by the trial court therefore deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back for deciding the application of the petitioners defendants in the light of provisions contained in Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC. 6. In that view of the matter, the order dated 31.3.2006 is set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the application of the petitioners defendants afresh in view of the earlier order dated 15.4.2005 passed by the High Court and in view of the provisions contained in Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC. Petition stands allowed accordingly. The stay order stands vacated forthwith.Petition allowed. *******