ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is instituted by the plaintiff challenging the decision rendered by the Court below on the question of sufficiency of court fee, by considering it as a preliminary issue. 2. Hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and the learned Government Advocate, it is noted that the suit has reached the stage of trial after framing of issues. Once issues are framed, it is the mandate of Rule 2(1) of Order 14 Rule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; for short the CPC, that the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 pronounce judgment on all issues. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 CPC enumerates the situations in which a suit may be disposed of on an issue of law only. This means that unless the issue is one of law only, the Court cannot deal with that matter as a preliminary issue. Going to clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 CPC, it can be seen that such issue of law should relate to jurisdiction of the Court. This is the relevant point for this case. The contents of clause (b) of Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC need not be considered further for this case. The jurisdiction of Court are often categorized as subject matter jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction. The suit is one of civil nature and therefore the subject matter jurisdiction issue does not arise for decision as against the Plaintiff. The territorial jurisdiction issue also does not arise. The pecuniary jurisdiction issue can arise only when the Court is of the opinion that the valuation of the suit is such that it would lie only to a Court superior to it; or otherwise, the valuation is done in such a manner as to escape an adjudication at the hands of the lowest Court where that suit can be tried. In the case in hand, there is no finding by the Court below that the valuation of the suit has been done in any such manner or that, the valuation of the suit would take it out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court below. If that is so, the question of the court fee to be paid ought not to have been tried as a preliminary issue in the suit. If that is so, the question of the court fee to be paid ought not to have been tried as a preliminary issue in the suit. May be, an order on the question of court fee could be passed in terms of the Court Fees Act. But, when an issue is to be tried by framing issues, the inhibition in Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC is that no issue can be tried as a preliminary issue unless it is an issue of law only and even then it should fall among clauses (a) or (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule (2) of Order 14 CPC. Otherwise, even a pure issue of law cannot be decided. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff argued for the position that the decision of the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112 , has been wrongly applied by the Court below. Cognizance of that submission is taken and it is found that the classification of cases into different types as delineated in paragraph 6 and 7 of that judgment (as reported in SCC) have not been correctly appreciated and applied by the Court below. 4. Be that as it may, such separate adjudication of that issue was never called for in the case in hand having regard to the clear provisions of Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the CPC. One of the cardinal principle which form part of the object of provisions similar to Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the CPC is to exclude the zone of consideration of what are treated as preliminary issue. This will exclude piecemeal trial and hearing. It will call for comprehensive and cohesive consideration of all issues and complete the trial, adjudication and decision making. Therefore, framing preliminary issue and considering issues as preliminary issue and rendering decision thereon should always be treated as to be done in exceptional circumstances and only when such issues arise in a case as would fall within the different limbs of Order 14 Rule 2 sub-rules (1) and (2) CPC and in particular, clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 CPC. The procedure adopted by the Court below in deciding the question of court fee as preliminary issue cannot be sustained. The procedure adopted by the Court below in deciding the question of court fee as preliminary issue cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned order is set aside also directing that at final hearing, the Court below will consider the issue of court fee afresh and independent of whatever has been stated in the order impugned in this writ petition and also adverting to and considering the contents of the judgment of the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh (supra) and by deciding on its application after assimilating the law laid there. 5. It is noted that the trial of the suit appears to be held up due to the pendency of this writ petition. It is further directed that the Court below will expedite the final hearing of the suit and deliver its verdict within an outer limit of two months from the date of passing of this order. 6. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.