Judgment A.M. SAPRE, J. Heard Mr. U. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondents. This is a civil revision filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the C.P. Code against the order dated 26.03.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Money Suit No. 38 of 2007. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge rejected the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of the C.P. Code in a suit filed by plaintiff (Respondent herein) on the ground that the objection raised by the defendant in relation to territorial jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining and trying the suit is a mixed question of law and fact and therefore it cannot be tried as preliminary issue by taking recourse to Order 14 Rule 2 of the C.P. Code. So the short question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether learned Civil Judge was justified in rejecting the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 ibid? Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record I find no merit in this revision. It is not in dispute that the defendant has already filed a written statement. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has also framed issues. Once the written statement is filed and issues are framed and if not framed, then they are required to be framed keeping in view the pleadings and requirement of Order 14 of C.P. Code, then only those issues can be tried as a preliminary issue which are abstract question of law and does not require any evidence for recording any finding for its answer. The issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction if arises and framed cannot be tried as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 because it is a mixed question of law and fact. Under these circumstances and in this view of the matter, the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of the C P Code was rightly rejected. Under these circumstances and in this view of the matter, the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of the C P Code was rightly rejected. It is also for the reasons that when the written statement has already been filed, then the application under Order 7 Rule 10 should not have been entertained because the only remedy then left open to the trial Court was to try the issues framed by allowing the parties to adduce evidence and then decide the suit on merits in accordance with law. If the defendant has already raised a plea with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the court in the written statement, then certainly the said issue can be tried along with other issues after the evidence is adduced on all issues. I however make it clear that while examining the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the impugned order passed by the trial Court would not come in its way. I, therefore, find no merit in this revision which is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit by allowing the parties to adduce evidence on all the issues to enable the trial Court to decide the suit on merits in accordance with law. Let the suit be decided within six months from the date of production of this order. The interim order passed by this Court on 04.10.2013 staying the proceeding in the trial Court is hereby recalled/vacated. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 18th of August, 2014 and produce the copy of this order so that the trial court is able to decide the suit as directed. No cost.