JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Through, the instant appeal, the appellants challenge the verdict recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, upon, Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2009, Where through, the learned First Appellate Court, after reversing, the verdict pronounced by the learned Civil Judge concerned, upon Civil Suit No. 201 of 1997, proceeded to make an order, of, remand to the learned trial Court, for its hence rendering a decision afresh, in accordance with law, upon, the afore civil suit. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendants No.1 and 2 that they had been joint owners in possession of the land described in the plaint. The defendants No.1 and 2 had no right, title or interest over the suit land. They had been recorded in possession of the suit land vide orders dated 17.7.1984/19.6.1985 passed in case No.341/81, 343/84 and 344/84 by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Una. Such orders were stated wrong, illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants had started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs on the strength of such orders, w.e.f. July 1997. They had been requested not to do so, but without any result and, hence the suit for declaration and injunction. In the alternative the plaintiffs had sought relief of possession in case defendants were successful in taking forcible possession or had been otherwise treated in possession. 3. The defendants No.1 and 2 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objection qua maintainability, estoppel, limitation, non joinder and valuation. It had also been averred that some of the plaintiffs were minor and suit on their behalf without appointment of guardians was incompetent. On merits, the defendants had denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land. The defendants had stated that they had been in possession of suit land for over 40 years prior to the institution of the suit. The possession of the defendants was open, hostile, continuous without interruption and hence adverse to the plaintiffs. The defendants had acquired rights of ownership by adverse possession. During the last settlement, Smt. Bimla Devi and other co-owners had applied for correction of entries of the books of the Collector. The possession of the defendants was open, hostile, continuous without interruption and hence adverse to the plaintiffs. The defendants had acquired rights of ownership by adverse possession. During the last settlement, Smt. Bimla Devi and other co-owners had applied for correction of entries of the books of the Collector. The settlement men had looked into the matter and had found the defendants in possession. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, after notice to the owners had proceeded to record the defendants in possession of the suit land vide order 17.7.1984/18.6.1985 passed in case Nos. 341/84, 343/84 and 344/84. Shri Parkash Chand one of the owners had also admitted the possession of the defendant before the A.C. 2nd Grade. The plaintiffs were bound by the orders passed by the A.C. 2nd Grade. The defendants had been in possession and hence question of their interference with the possession of the plaintiff could not arise for consideration. The suit had not been instituted by all the co-owners and hence suffered from the vice of non joinder. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether orders dated 7.7.84/19.6.85 allegedly passed by A.C. IInd Grade, Una in cases NO.341/84, 343/84 and 344/84 are wrong, null and void, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the defendants have became owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD. 5. Whether plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file present suit? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 7. Whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 8. Whether suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee, if so, what is correct valuation of the suit property? OPD. 9. Whether suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground mentioned in preliminary objection No.8? OPD. 10. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. OPD. 9. Whether suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground mentioned in preliminary objection No.8? OPD. 10. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the plaintiffs/respondents herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed, the, appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, and, hence, made a order of remand, vis-a-vis, the trial Court. 7. Now the defendants/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assail the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment, by the learned first Appellate Court. 8. A perusal of the order rendered on 6.12.1999 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) concerned, unfolds, qua thereunder, the, following issues being struck, upon, the contentious pleadings of the parties, at contest:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether orders dated 7.7.84/19.6.85 allegedly passed by A.C. IInd Grade, Una in cases NO.341/84, 343/84 and 344/84 are wrong, null and void, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the defendants have became owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD. 5. Whether plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file present suit? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 7. Whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 8. Whether suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee, if so, what is correct valuation of the suit property? OPD. 9. Whether suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground mentioned in preliminary objection No.8? OPD. 10. Relief.” However, the learned trial Court rendered, hence, answers in the affirmative, upon, issues No.7 and 9, and, obviously further answered qua hence, the, other issues rather being rendered redundant, and, thereafter it proceeded to dismiss the suit, as abated. In an appeal carried therefrom by the aggrieved plaintiff, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter, under, the impugned verdict, rather made an order of remand, vis-avis, the learned trial Court. 9. The apt conundrum which, is, enjoined to be put, to rest, (I) squarely rests upon attraction hereat, of, the statutory mandate embodied in Order 14, Rule 2 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “2. 9. The apt conundrum which, is, enjoined to be put, to rest, (I) squarely rests upon attraction hereat, of, the statutory mandate embodied in Order 14, Rule 2 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “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 in force, 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.” In sub-rule (2) thereof, a clear statutory expostulation, is borne qua (a), when upon, the contentious pleadings of the parties at contest, issues both of law and facts hence being hence sparked, (b) and, conspicuously when at the stage prior to the strking of all the issues, the Court, is of a firm opinion that the suit being amenable, for disposal, only upon an issue of law,(c) appertaining to the jurisdiction of the court, (d) or the suit being barred by any law for the time being in force, (e) thereupon, the trial Court concerned, being bestowed, with a jurisdiction, to postpone the settlement of issues of fact, until, the afore issue(s) of law, are/is, meted an adjudication thereon. However, hereat, under, the afore extracted order pronounced on 6.12.1999, apparently all the issues of facts, and, of law, rather stood conjointly struck, by the learned trial Court, (f) obviously, though hence, the learned trial Court, was bestowed with the apt jurisdiction, embodied in sub-rule (2) to Rule (2) of Order 14 of the CPC, to, prior to the striking of all the afore conjoint issues, of fact, and, of law, (g) to rather proceed to strike only issue(s), appertaining to the jurisdiction of Court, and, qua the suit being barred by any law for the time being in force, (h) and, upto meteing, of, a decision thereon, the trial Court, though, was bestowed with a further valid jurisdiction, to postpone, the settlement of issues, appertaining to the contentious facts, emerging inter se the litigating parties, (i) and, when adoption of the afore course, rather would hence validate any affirmative/disaffirmative findings recorded, upon, the afore issues of law, AND, would depending, upon, conclusion being meted thereon, also hold jurisdiction, to, non suit the plaintiff or proceed to strike also issues, of, fact. However, when hereat through the order rendered, on 6.12.1999, rather conjoint issues of fact, and, of law hence stood framed, thereupon, the learned trial Court was barred, to segregate the issues of facts, and, of law, rather was enjoined to render findings, upon, all issues of facts, and, of law, than to proceed, to render findings only, upon, issues appertaining to (a) jurisdiction of the court, or (b) civil suit being barred by any law for the time being in force, render affirmative findings, (c) and, thereafter proceed, to without answering the other issues, of, fact hence non suit the plaintiff. In coming to the afore conclusion, this Court finds support, from a judgment rendered, by the Division Bench of this Court, in a case titled as Prithvi Raj Jhingta and another vs. Gopal Singh and another, reported in 2006(2) Shim. LC 441, the relevant paragraph No.9 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- “9. In coming to the afore conclusion, this Court finds support, from a judgment rendered, by the Division Bench of this Court, in a case titled as Prithvi Raj Jhingta and another vs. Gopal Singh and another, reported in 2006(2) Shim. LC 441, the relevant paragraph No.9 whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- “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 subrule (2) 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 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. Subrule (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 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 frame din the suit.” The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of the material on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane, and, apposite material from consideration. 10. In summa, the order of remand made by the learned First Appellate Court, bears consonance, with the afore extracted trite expostulations of law, borne in the judgment (supra), thereupon, the order impugned before this Court, is well merited. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The order impugned before this Court, is, affirmed and maintained. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The order impugned before this Court, is, affirmed and maintained. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 28th December, 2018. The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the apposite civil suit, within, six months from today. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.