Order 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contesting respondents have appeared through counsel. The respondent no. 5 has refused to accept dasti notice and respondent nos. 4 & 6 have been validly served. It is submitted that though the name of the respondent nos. 7, 8 & 9 have been added, since they were out of station at the time when the petitioner tried to serve them, their names may be deleted from the array of parties. Ordered accordingly, at the risk and cost of the petitioner. 2. Aggrieved by order dated 03.02.2014 whereby, the Trial Court accepted application dated 22.12.2012 for framing a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 86 of 2012. The suit was filed for a decree for specifying 43 % of the owner's share in Durga Rani Enclave and for undivided share in equal proportion and also for carving out 1/5th share out of 43 % share of owner's allocation besides, damage of Rs. 14,000/per month payable to the plaintiff. Further prayers for declaring construction over 4th floor illegal and unauthorized and for a direction to the defendant 1st party to remove the 5th floor construction have also been made in the suit. In the pending suit, application dated 22.12.2012 for framing a preliminary issue on maintainability was filed. The said application has been allowed vide order dated 03.02.2014. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court committed serious error in law in holding that a preliminary issue of maintainability requires to be framed in the suit. It is contended that before settling the issues the Trial Court could not have ordered framing of preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit. It is further contended that existence of an arbitration agreement cannot be a ground for challenging jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain Title Suit No. 86 of 2012 and therefore, the Trial Court could not have ordered framing of preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction. 5. Order XIV Rule 2 CPC reads as under; 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. 5. Order XIV Rule 2 CPC reads as under; 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 inforce 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.” 6. In view of sub-rule 2 to Rule 2 of Order XIV CPC, the Trial Court if it thinks fit can frame a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction of the Court. Whether the plea taken by the defendant 1st party that in view of arbitration clause under Agreement dated 26.06.2008 the suit is not maintainable would sustain the scrutiny in law or not, is a question which would be decided by the Trial Court only after hearing the parties. At this stage, the jurisdiction of the Trial Court to frame preliminary issue on the maintainability of the suit cannot be challenged on a ground which may require adjudication on facts. Of course, during the course of hearing on the preliminary issue of maintainability the plaintiff may raise objection however, at this stage objection taken by the plaintiff that existence of arbitration agreement is not a ground for challenging the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, cannot be adjudicated. I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.02.2014 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of Title Suit No. 86 of 2012, expeditiously.