JUDGMENT : K. HARILAL, J. 1. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the respondent herein and this O.P. (FC) was filed, challenging the order passed in I.A. No. 4659/2019 in O.P. No. 900/2014 on the files of the Family Court, Ernakulam. 2. O.P. (FC) No. 900/2014 was filed by the respondent/wife, seeking a decree for realisation of money and gold ornaments from the 1st petitioner/husband. The aforesaid I.A. No. 4659/2019 was filed, under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), to frame preliminary issues in respect of res-judicata and estoppel and to decide the same prior to regular trial and to dismiss the original petition before trial, as not maintainable. The averments in the said interlocutory application are as follows. 3. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent was solomnised on 18.11.2001, in accordance with law and two children were born out of the said wedlock. While so, the marital relationship has become strained and they began to live separately. 4. The respondent/wife had earlier filed O.P. No. 2147/2012, seeking divorce and return of gold ornaments from the petitioner and O.P. (GW) No. 2319/2012 was also filed, claiming custody of the minor children. Both the aforesaid original petitions were referred to mediation, where the parties settled their disputes, united and started to live together at Chennai. They entered into Ext.P3 settlement agreement, dated 28.11.2013. On the basis of Ext.P3 settlement agreement, the Family Court passed Exts.P4 and P5 orders, dismissing the original petitions, as it was not pressed on reunion. Pursuant to Ext.P3 and P4, the 1st petitioner and the respondent started to live together at Chennai. 5. Disputes again arose and they again fell apart and began to live separately. The respondent/wife again filed O.P. No. 900/2014 against the 1st petitioner/husband, claiming money and gold ornaments, as prayed for in the earlier O.P. No. 2147/2012. In addition to that, she has prayed for passing a decree, directing the 1st petitioner to return 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments more or its present market value, on the allegation that, when they were living together at Chennai after reunion, she had given 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the 2nd petitioner. So, she is entitled to get back the same in addition to the claims raised in the earlier original petition, which was dismissed as not pressed. So, she is entitled to get back the same in addition to the claims raised in the earlier original petition, which was dismissed as not pressed. An ex-parte decree was passed in the said O.P. No. 900/2014 and thereafter, the same was set aside by this Court by Ext.P7 order passed in O.P. (FC) No. 541/2018. 6. According to the 1st petitioner, as several legal issues touching upon the very maintainability of the original petition are involved, he has preferred I.A. No. 4659/2019, under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC, to raise preliminary issues and to decide the same. 7. The respondent/wife resisted the relief sought for in the said application, by filing Ext.P12 counter affidavit. According to the respondent/wife, there is no bona-fides in the present application, to determine the preliminary issues, touching the maintainability of the petition. In O.P. (FC) No. 541/2018, after setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against the 1st petitioner in O.P. No. 900/2014, this Court directed the Family Court to dispose of the case on merits after trial, within a period of 4 months. So, there is no circumstance to urge for hearing on preliminary issue before trial. The preliminary issues raised are not preliminary issues on law and they are preliminary issues on disputed facts, which cannot be decided before trial. The said interlocutory application is intended to cause further delay in disposing the original petition on merits, after trial. The settlement in O.P. No. 2147/2012 is only with regard to dissolution of marriage of the parties therein and not on any other claim. The various legal issues of res-judicata, estoppel and limitation, which are sought to be brought into action, by the 1st petitioner/husband herein, do not have any applicability to the fact in dispute involved in O.P. No. 900/2014, along with O.P. No. 2147/2012. The respondent/wife had preferred O.P. No. 969/2014 for dissolution of marriage and M.C. No. 364/2015 for maintenance, before the Family Court, Ernakulam. The 1st petitioner herein had acceded to the jurisdiction of this Court and those original petitions were allowed on consent. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ernakulam. With the aforesaid averments, they prayed for dismissal of the application. 8. On the rival pleadings, the 1st petitioner/husband filed Exts.A1 to A7 and no document was filed by the respondent/wife. 9. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ernakulam. With the aforesaid averments, they prayed for dismissal of the application. 8. On the rival pleadings, the 1st petitioner/husband filed Exts.A1 to A7 and no document was filed by the respondent/wife. 9. After considering the averments in the interlocutory application, objection and Exts.A1 to A7, the Family Court dismissed the aforesaid interlocutory applications on a finding that the preliminary issues raised are ‘mixed question of fact and law’ falling outside the jurisdiction and power of the court, under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC. So also, it was found that, as there was no adjudication on merits in O.P. No. 2147/2012, the question of res-judicata does not arise and the principles of estoppel will not arise on Ext.A5 mediation agreement. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid findings are challenged in this original petition. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 11. Firstly, let us have a look at the jurisdiction and power, under Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC. It is needless to say the issues are of two kinds i.e. (a) issues of facts and (b) issues of law. According to Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, where issues of both law and fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of the 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. It follows that, issues of fact cannot be considered as preliminary issue and issues of law alone can be considered as preliminary issue, if it relates to jurisdiction of the Court or bar to the suit. 12. The first point to be considered is, whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the findings that the principles of res-judicata estoppel will not arise as there was no adjudication on merits in the earlier O.P. No. 2147/2012. It is not disputed that the claims in respect of return of money and gold ornaments, raised in O.P. No. 2147/2012, are seen again raised in O.P. No. 900/2014. It is not disputed that the claims in respect of return of money and gold ornaments, raised in O.P. No. 2147/2012, are seen again raised in O.P. No. 900/2014. In the above context, the nature of disposal of earlier O.P. No. 2147/2012 assumes significance and it reads thus: Both parties present. Matter settled out of court. OP not pressed. Submitted. Made endorsement to that effect. Recorded. Op stands dismissed as it is not pressed (on reunion) 13. As rightly observed by the Family Court, there was no adjudication on issues and the original petition stands dismissed as it was not pressed on reunion. Put it differently, no issue has been decided in the earlier O.P. No. 2147/2012. As per the said order, the original petition stands dismissed as not pressed on reunion. Nothing has been stated about the terms of settlement in the order dismissing the said original petition. The terms of settlement are not made as part of the said judgment. More importantly, no compromise decree was passed on the basis of settlement agreement and the O.P stands dismissed. Hence, there is no illegality or impropriety in the finding that the principles of res-judicata will not come as a preliminary issue in the original petition, O.P. No. 900/2014. 14. The next question to be considered is, whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the finding that the principles of ‘estoppel’ will not arise as a preliminary issue as it is a mixed question of law and fact. 15. What is estoppel? Estoppel, under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, reads thus: “When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceedings between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.” 16. To invoke the doctrine of estoppel, three conditions must be satisfied; namely: (a) representation by a person to another (b) the other shall have acted upon the said representation and (c) such action shall have been detrimental to the interest of the person, to whom the representation was made. No cause of action arise from estoppel itself. It only precludes a person from denying the truth from some statement previously made by him. 17. No cause of action arise from estoppel itself. It only precludes a person from denying the truth from some statement previously made by him. 17. On an analysis of the statutory ingredients as stated above, we find that the issue of estoppel is a mixed question of fact and law and not an issue of law only; falling under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. Unless all the aforesaid statutory ingredients are proved in evidence, the principles of estoppel cannot be applied. It follows that, the issue of estoppel cannot be considered as a preliminary issue of law falling under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondent/wife agreed to live together with the 1st petitioner/husband along with the children and to withdraw O.P. No. 2147/2012 and O.P. No. 2319/2012 filed by her and thereafter she had withdrawn the aforesaid O.P. and lived together. Therefore, she is estopped from living separately and instituting a fresh suit against the 1st petitioner/husband with the relief sought for in the earlier original petitions, O.P. No. 2147/2012 and O.P. No. 2319/2012. 19. We are unable to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the 1st petitioner/husband. Even if, the aforesaid facts are admitted, those acts of the respondent/wife will not constitute the doctrine of estoppel, as the 1st petitioner/husband has no case that she has not withdrawn the said original petition as assured by her and he alone has acted anything upon the said representation made by the respondent/wife. 20. On the other hand, admittedly the respondent/wife had withdrawn the original petitions No. 2147/2012 and 2319/2012, as assured by her and she lived together with the 1st petitioner/husband at Chennai. In Ext.P3 settlement agreement, she has not made any representation to the effect that she has relinquished all her claims against the 1st petitioner/husband and she will not file a fresh original petition with the same relief, if the reunion collapse and they live separately, after living together at Chennai. The terms of settlement do not constitute a representation, which would give rise to the doctrine of estoppel against the respondent/wife. The terms of settlement do not constitute a representation, which would give rise to the doctrine of estoppel against the respondent/wife. That apart, we further find that merely for the reason that one of the spouses has withdrawn the original petition filed by him/her against the other to live together, as a result of mediation, it cannot be treated as a relinquishment of claim against the other, for ever, notwithstanding the change of circumstance in future. In a mediation, the parties may arrive at a settlement and act upon it, notwithstanding the claims raised by them in the suit or original petition. After the settlement, they may live together for sometime and again live separately, on subsequent events. In such circumstances, the party, who has withdrawn the original petition, may file a fresh original petition on subsequent change of circumstance. It is needless to say the principles of res-judicata and estoppel rest on the same cause of action and it cannot be pressed into service on different cause of action that arose from the change of circumstance. Thus, subsequent suit may arise from the change of circumstance at different times. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the subsequent suit is barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 21. In the instant case, even if the settlement agreement is admitted as such, it cannot be said that the respondent/wife has relinquished her claim against the 1st petitioner/husband for ever, notwithstanding change of circumstances, if any, in future. What is stated is that the respondent/wife agreed to withdrew the suit. 22. Admittedly, the respondent/wife, as agreed in Ext.P3 settlement agreement, went along with their children to Chennai and lived together with the 1st petitioner/husband, for sometime and thereafter they again fell apart due to difference of opinion. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent/wife has not acted upon the representation made by her. Since she has not stated anything about her claim against the 1st petitioner in the settlement agreement, it cannot be said that she relinquished her claims raised in the earlier original petitions so as to live together. They lived together in matrimony at Chennai and the present petition is filed after living together for a considerable period. Since she has not stated anything about her claim against the 1st petitioner in the settlement agreement, it cannot be said that she relinquished her claims raised in the earlier original petitions so as to live together. They lived together in matrimony at Chennai and the present petition is filed after living together for a considerable period. According to the averments in the original petition, there is a change of circumstance and a fresh cause of action has arisen from the change of circumstances and the present original petition was filed, on the fresh cause of action arose on 25.04.2014. 23. Therefore, in the above view also, principles of estoppel will not come as a preliminary issue, falling under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. The aforesaid findings are made on the basis of the materials on record at present. The petitioner has the right to prove otherwise, on evidence, during trial. However, the petitioners are allowed to raise all the contentions at the time of final disposal of the original petition, and the Family Court is directed to dispose of the original petition, untrammelled by the observations made above, as early as possible. 24. This original petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.