JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 04.07.2018, whereby the trial court has dismissed the petitioner-defendant's (hereinafter 'defendant') application to decide issue no.6 i.e as to whether the respondent-plaintiff's (hereinafter 'plaintiff') suit barred by law as a preliminary issue in terms of Order 14, Rule 2 CPC. 2. The facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit inter alia for permanent injunction regarding seeking his possession in part of house no.194, Barodia Scheme, Banipark, Jaipur albeit in the name of the defendant-Rajendra Sharma-his real brother. It was submitted that the defendant aforesaid was only the formal purchaser as per the purchase of the house in issue he had also contributed certain sums. It was stated that yet the defendant-Rajendra Sharma taking advantage of the property being registered in his name was seeking to prevent the plaintiff his brother, from enjoying the possession in the suit property and taking steps to exclude him. Injunction from obstruction and user of the house to the extent of the plaintiff's possession was sought. On service of summons in the suit defendant-Rajendra Sharma filed a written statement of denial. He asserted that the suit property was purchased by him alone in his name by a registered sale deed after availing a loan from the bank. The other defendant in the suit one Sharad Kumar Sharma; the brother of the plaintiff however supported the plaintiff's case but in part stated that instead of a suit for permanent injunction, the appropriate remedy was for filing a suit for partition. Subsequent to defendant-Sharad Kumar Sharma's death the same stand was taken by his legal representative-defendant no.2/2-Krishan Kant Sharma. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed 6 issues as under:- 1 - 3TPTT WTT 2 if RTRtccT Wf?KRT % m lifted t f^RT RR R +RH if RWT W 1301.2008 Pl^lRd frifT W ^ ^ yRHl41 WfT 2 IRT sfTETT ISc'FR t WRT ^Ri ^ arteuff t? 2 - 3m ^ifr w m ii^ wr t? - yRHi 3 - 3TFTT m ^ffRT TR TR^cT ^ WR"T M ^ t? - yR)di41 wit 2 4 - 3MT ^TRRRf ^ WfT 2 ^ yj-ylcd ylidlfl WIT 2 ^ Allied # t faRlif ^ # 3Ri# RRTM ^fr; f^r % Wrr ^eRr ^rt rtrt ^RRi arteTrft f? 2 - 3m ^ifr w m ii^ wr t? - yRHi 3 - 3TFTT m ^ffRT TR TR^cT ^ WR"T M ^ t? - yR)di41 wit 2 4 - 3MT ^TRRRf ^ WfT 2 ^ yj-ylcd ylidlfl WIT 2 ^ Allied # t faRlif ^ # 3Ri# RRTM ^fr; f^r % Wrr ^eRr ^rt rtrt ^RRi arteTrft f? yRldi41 wn 2 5 - 3TPTT ^ WTT 2 ^ ^RT UHlcd wft yR)dl ^ Rnfar ^r: im rr^ t ^rt Msnw wrt rrt* rr arteuft t? yRldi<(l w 2 6 - 3TPTT 6cta+i t T> fef R^ ^ni' iRR t? ylrHl 7 - 3R^K? 4. Issue no.6 specifically related to question as to whether the suit was barred by law i.e. by Section 4 of the The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988'). 5. At this stage, the defendant filed an application under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC praying that issue no.6 be tried as a preliminary issue. The trial court vide order dated 04.07.2018 noted that on the case set up by the plaintiff he had in effort pleaded a fiduciary relationship with the defendant Rajendra Sharma his brother in respect of the suit property and whether therefore the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1988 attracted was a matter of evidence. Hence issue no.6 would be decided on the basis of the evidence of the contesting parties along with other issues, held the trial court by its impugned order. 6. Order 14, Rule 2 CPC on its plain language confer a discretion on the trial court to decide an issue struck as the preliminary issue. In the instant case the trial court has refused to exercise its discretion for the reasons recorded above-with which there can be no good ground to disagree. 7. I am of the considered view that in the facts of the case the impugned order is neither vitiated by any error of jurisdiction, misdirection in law or capriciousness to warrant interference therewith at the hands of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.