JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. Apt objections in respect of the extant suit being defective for want of this Court possessing the apposite pecuniary limits of jurisdiction, also the suit being defective given its being grossly overvalued, for, the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, stood ventilated, both in preliminary objections embodied in the written statement, furnished to the plaint and also in OMP No. 387 of 2016. In OMP No. 387 of 2016, the learned senior counsel has also made a prayer that the plaint be ordered to be returned to the learned counsel of the plaintiff for its presentation before the court concerned, holding the apposite pecuniary jurisdiction to pronounce a verdict thereon. The learned counsel for the parties in corroboration of their respective pleaded contentions with regard to the suit being defective or not, its, being grossly overvalued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction or its being properly valued, have, appended therewith certain valuations and other documents. However, unless all the aforesaid documents are proven in accordance with law besides stand exhibited, no, reliance can be placed thereon by this Court, for accepting or rejecting the rival submissions addressed before this Court. The learned senior counsel for the defendants has made a submission before this Court, that an appropriate preliminary issue be struck in respect of the suit being grossly overvalued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, dehors, this Court cumulatively therewith striking issues of fact. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant. The relevant verdict of this Court is borne in a judgment reported in 2008 (3) SLC 477, the relevant paragraph whereof occurring at S. No. 8, is reproduced hereunder:- “8. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid views. Order 14 Rule 2 CPC does not empower the Court to direct trial of the preliminary issues at a later stage. In fact, as observed, by the learned Chief Justice, where both issues of law and fact arise and the Court is of the opinion that the case can be disposed of on the legal issues only, it should normally frame the legal issue and should postpone the framing of the other issues. In fact, as observed, by the learned Chief Justice, where both issues of law and fact arise and the Court is of the opinion that the case can be disposed of on the legal issues only, it should normally frame the legal issue and should postpone the framing of the other issues. I am of the opinion that even if the Court frames issues both of law as well as of fact, the Court must on the same date itself clearly decide whether the legal issues’ are to be treated as preliminary issues or not. This must be done on the date when the issues are framed. Once issues are framed and the case is set down for recording of evidence, the Court has no power to hold that some issues should be tried as preliminary issues. It is then duty bound to try and decide all the issues together.” Also, the verdict rendered by a Full Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (2) SLC 441, the relevant paragraph 9 whereof stands extracted hereunder, holds, the relevant legal expostulation:- “9. Based upon the aforesaid reasons therefore, and in the light of legislative background of Rule 2 and the legislative intent as well as mandate based upon such background, as well as on its plain reading, we have no doubt in our minds that except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (20) where a Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, under sub-rule (1), clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court in such a situation to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1) clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been framed together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.” 2. In both the aforesaid verdicts relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned courts concerned had struck all issues appertaining, to, both issues of law besides issues of fact, yet, despite the learned courts concerned cumulatively striking issues of fact and of law, they, during progress of trial of suits rather proceeded to segregate besides sever issues of law from issues of fact whereafter they permitted the parties concerned, to, adduce evidences in discharges thereof. The aforesaid concert of the civil Courts concerned was deprecated in the verdicts aforesaid pronounced by this Court. However, the distinctive trite fact existing in the instant suit, is comprised in this Court, not, yet cumulatively striking issues of fact and issues of law. Consequently, there would be also no occasion to untenably segregate one from the another nor would any occasion arise for the counsel for the contesting parties, being untenably enjoined to adduce evidence only in respect of issue of law whereas, the adduction of evidence upon issues appertaining to factual contentions standing untenably postponed. 3. Given the aforesaid therewith distinctive trite factum hereat rather given the aforesaid preliminary jurisdictional objections hence appertaining to beside embodying issues of law, thereupon the apposite mandates occurring in the aforesaid relevant paragraphs comprised in verdicts pronounced by this Court, constrain this Court to proceed to frame the hereinafter apposite issues of law, issues whereof singularly appertain to the jurisdiction of the Court, to try the suit for purported want of the suit being grossly overvalued or not, for the purposes of both court fee and jurisdiction. Consequently, the address made before this Court by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that at this stage, this Court cumulatively strike all issues arising from all the contentious pleadings of the parties, is not accepted. 4. The mandate occurring in sub clause (2) of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC is also extracted hereinafter, as, the aforesaid conclusions stand firmly founded thereon, therein it stands specifically envisaged, that if any court of law is of the opinion that the entire lis or part thereof, can, be disposed of only on issues of law, thereupon, its, also holding an empowerment, to, if the issue appertains to its jurisdiction, to, hence try it initially without its settling contentious issues of fact, whereas its deferring the striking of the latter issues, thereupon this Court is constrained to invincibly conclude that the legal issue appertaining, to, the purported overvaluation of the suit impinges upon the jurisdiction of this Court, in sequel it is deemed fit to initially strike it also, thereafter try it also it is deemed fit, to, not along with it strike contentious issues of fact, rather settlement of latter issues is postponed. (1) Whether the suit is grossly overvalued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPDA. (2) Whether the plaint warrants its being returned for its representation before the appropriate Court? OPDA. 5. Issues are read over and explained to the parties. No other issue arises for determination. Now on steps being taken within two weeks, the matter be listed for adduction of defendants’ evidence, on a date to be fixed by the Registry of this Court. For striking of other factual issues, the matter is deferred.