ORDER : Petitioner being the 1st defendant in the partition suit in O.S.No.369/2009 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for laying the challenge to the order dated 12.12.2014 whereby the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chickballapur has decided to hold trial of issue No.3 as to maintainability of the suit, as the preliminary issue. After service of notice, respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that on 14.07.2014 the issue No.3 relating to bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court in view of Sec.132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 having been directed to be considered along with all other issues and having posted the case for evidence of the respondent-plaintiffs, the learned trial Judge could not have favoured respondents application filed u/s.151 r/w 94(e) of CPC 1908 and thereby directed the petitioner to commence evidence subject to right of the other side to adduce rebuttal evidence. The learned counsel submits that the doctrine of Respondent judicata as enacted u/s.11 of CPC applies to successive stages of the same litigation and this having not been noticed by the trial Judge, there is error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of this Court to set the injustice at naught. 3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents per contra submits that the Court below vide order dated 14.06.2011 had earmarked the said issue for being tried as a preliminary issue since it related to very jurisdiction of the Civil Court; by the impugned order effect is being given to the said order on the application of the respondents; even otherwise also there is no demonstrable prejudice occasioned to the petitioner by the impugned order; therefore there is no warrant for indulgence of writ court in this matter. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the Petition Papers and I have adverted to the decision of the Apex Court cited at the Bar. 5. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the Petition Papers and I have adverted to the decision of the Apex Court cited at the Bar. 5. The suit is for a decree of partition and for other reliefs; the petitioner has filed the Written Statement on 11.11.2009 inter alia taking up the plea as to lack of jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Sec.132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; the Court below vide Order dated 14.06.2011 having framed the preliminary issue, later on 14.07.2014 has suggested for the trial of the suit as a whole, wherein this issue too would be addressed along with the main matter; this order could not have been reversed by the Court below without any justifiable reasons. 6. The issue relating to ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court u/s.132 of K.L.R. Act is not a pure question of law and apparently it is a mixed question of law which needs evidentiary material. This premises is not contradicted even in the impugned order inasmuch as here too the trial is directed. It is a settled legal position that except where law compels, ordinarily an issue involving mixed question of law is not treated as a preliminary issue. No such legal compulsion is notified to this Court. 7. The above apart, the doctrine of Respondent judicata enacted in Sec.11 of CPC applies to successive stages of the very same proceedings; this aspect having not being adverted to by the learned trial Judge, the impugned order is infected with error of law apparent on its face and the prejudice occasioned thereby is ex-facie. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that an insignificant grievance like an issue being treated in a particular way by the trial Court in its wisdom ordinarily cannot be a subject matter of scrutiny at the hands of the Writ Court, is true. But this Writ Petition is of the year 2015; the suit is nearly a decade old; it has been stayed all along; much time which otherwise could have been saved has been lost forever, qua the parties; in any circumstance, it is desirable that the suit is taken up for trial instead of one particular issue being taken for treatment. But this Writ Petition is of the year 2015; the suit is nearly a decade old; it has been stayed all along; much time which otherwise could have been saved has been lost forever, qua the parties; in any circumstance, it is desirable that the suit is taken up for trial instead of one particular issue being taken for treatment. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; impugned order is set at naught; the learned trial Judge is requested to accomplish the trial of the suit itself within an outer limit of one year, with the participation of the parties. All contentions of the parties are kept open.