Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 204 (MP)

Ranjeet Singh v. Ramveer Singh

2014-02-13

SHEEL NAGU

body2014
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia assails the order passed on 15.11.2011 in Civil Suit No.59-A/2012 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Mehgaon, District Bhind, whereby the trial Court has directed the defendant to adduce evidence in support of issue No.6 regarding deficit valuation of the suit and payment of the court fees. Trial Court, thus, intends to decide issue No.6 before deciding those issues which were already framed on 29.8.2011. 2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner relying on decision of the apex Court Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta reported in (2006)5 SCC 638 contends that once having found the issue No.6 to be involving mixed question of fact and law, the trial Court could not have proceeded to decide the said issue by postponing the decision on the other issues. It is contended that an issue can be decided before the other issues when the same relates exclusively to law. The powers to postpone other issues to decide a preliminary issue first, cannot be exercised when the preliminary issue requires 2 adducing of evidence. 4. Provision of Order 14 rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced below :- “2. 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.” 5. A bare perusal of the abovesaid statutory provision elicits that it is couched in mandatory language, which is evident from non-obstant cause (notwithstanding) employed in the said provision. The law obliges the Court to pronounce judgment on all issues. A bare perusal of the abovesaid statutory provision elicits that it is couched in mandatory language, which is evident from non-obstant cause (notwithstanding) employed in the said provision. The law obliges the Court to pronounce judgment on all issues. This obligation is subject to two exceptions contained in Order 14 rule 2 (2) (a) and (b) of CPC, which provide that the abovesaid general principle of pronouncing judgment on all issues can be ignored only when the preliminary issue pertains to jurisdiction of the Court or relates to bar to the suit created by any law in vogue. The said provision, thus, does not bestow any power or authority upon the Court to postpone the other issues for the sake of deciding one issue which though the Court feels is a preliminary issue but yet is of the view that it requires adducing of evidence for its decision. 6. Testing the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order on the anvil of the abovesaid provision and the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Ramesh B. Desai (Supra), it is crystal clear that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The Court below has postponed the trial on other issues for deciding the issue No.6, for which evidence has been called upon to be adduced. Thus, it means the trial Court is of the view that issue No.6 does not merely involves question of law as contained in Order 14 rule 2 (2) (a) and (b) of CPC, but involves mixed question of fact and law. Thus, the Court below has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it thereby impelling this Court to interfere in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Consequently, the impugned order passed on 15.11.2011 in Civil Suit No.59-A/2012 is set aside. Trial Court may now proceed to try all the issues together by adducing evidence. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed sans cost.