JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as material available on record. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners non-applicants have approached this Court for assailing the order dated 24.8.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur allowing the application filed by the respondent applicant and turning down the prayer of the petitioners non-applicants to decide the issue no.7 as preliminary issue. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by an earlier order dated 1.9.2015, the trial Court had directed that the evidence shall be recorded regarding issue no.7. Thus, it has to be presumed that the trial Court proposed to decide such issue as preliminary issue. He thus submits that the impugned order amounts to a review of the order which is not permissible and, therefore, the writ petition should be allowed and the order dated 24.8.2016 be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent urged that at no point of time and in none of the proceedings did the trial Court record that the issue no.7 was to be decided as a preliminary issue. Rather, the application submitted on behalf of the petitioners to this effect was rejected on 1.9.2015. The issue no.7 framed by the trial Court involves a mixed question of fact and law and, therefore, the same cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the fact that the trial Court has concluded in the order dated 1.9.2015 that the issue no.7 involves mixed questions of facts and law and that the said order was never challenged and has attained finality. 5. In view of the above discussion and considered in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Sharma v. Fakruddin reported in 2014(1) DNJ (Raj.) 241, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in accepting the application of the respondent and directing that the issue no.7 shall not be decided as a preliminary issue but shall be decided finally at the time of deciding the suit. In my opinion, the order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, perversity or error apparent on face of record so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. No order as to cost.