JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Hari Shankar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner through video conference and Shri R.S. Tripathi, learned counsel for the private-respondents No.11 to 13 and the learned standing counsel for the respondents No.3 to 6 in physical mode. 2. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 03.03.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), West, Hardoi whereby it decided the preliminary issues. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred a revision before the Additional District Judge, Court No.16, Hardoi bearing No.23/2004 which has also been dismissed by means of the order dated 04.09.2006. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders, the instant petition has been filed. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the manner in which the preliminary issues have been decided it amounts to recording a finding which will affect the case of petitioner on merits during trial. 5. It has further been pointed out that a specific plea in Para-41 of the written statement was taken regarding the suit being barred by limitation, however, no issue to the aforesaid effect has been framed and by and large the issues which have been decided by the impugned orders, they were all issues involving mixed questions of law and facts which ought not to have been decided as a preliminary issues. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that one of the issue which related to the non-joinder of the necessary parties after having been held that the said parties are required to be impleaded, hence before deciding other issues it was required to implead them and only after their written statements was filed, the remaining preliminary issues could have been decided. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that the impugned orders are bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Shri R.S.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the private-respondents no.11 to 13 submits that the privater-respondents No.11 to 13 were the plaintiffs before the trial court. The trial Court on the pleadings of the defendant-petitioner framed the issues. 7. On the other hand, Shri R.S.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the private-respondents no.11 to 13 submits that the privater-respondents No.11 to 13 were the plaintiffs before the trial court. The trial Court on the pleadings of the defendant-petitioner framed the issues. The issue relating to non-joinder of the necessary parties, also as to whether the proceedings before the Civil Judge was barred in terms of the provisions contained in U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 as also as to whether the plaint was properly valued which also affected the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court concerned and the issue related to, whether the plaint was barred by virtue of Sections 287 and 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act were considered. 8. It is further urged that the issues were considered and have been decided by the trial court. The findings in any case are only for the satisfaction of the Court as to whether the proceedings are maintainable before the Civil Court or not. In any case, the matter is yet to be decided on merits after the parties are permitted to lead their evidence and thus, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner has suffered any prejudice. 9. On account of the interim order in the instant petition, the proceedings of the suit filed by the private-respondents No.11 to 13 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Hardoi has been affected and is causing prejudice to the private-respondents. It is submitted that the petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 10. Having considered the parties and from the perusal of the record, briefly encapsulating the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition, it would indicates that the private-respondents No.11 to 13 preferred a Regular Suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Hardoi. The said suit came to be registered as Regular Suit No.331/2001. 11. By means of the said suit, the private-respondents No.11 to 13 had prayed for the cancellation of the sale certificate dated 18.01.1996. It also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. 12. In response to the said plaint, the petitioner, who is the defendant No.1 in the suit, filed his written statement on 07.12.2001. It also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. 12. In response to the said plaint, the petitioner, who is the defendant No.1 in the suit, filed his written statement on 07.12.2001. The defence amongst other pleas raised, that the suit was barred as the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 12 of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. It also raised a plea that the suit was barred under Sections 287 and 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. A plea was also raised that a suit was bad as it sufferred from vice of non-joinder of necessary parties and the plaint was also barred by Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the suit was hit by Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and that the suit was also beyond the period of limitation. 13. The trial court having considered the respective pleadings of the parties by means of the order dated 08.01.2004 framed eleven issues. Thereafter hearing the parties by means of the order dated 30.03.2004 it took up the issues No.4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 for consideration and by the said order it decided the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No.1 except in respect of Issue No.4 which related to the non-joinder of the necessary parties. 14. By means of the said order dated 30.03.2004, the trial court held that the plaintiffs were required to implead the necessary parties. However, insofar as the other issues relating to the plaint being barred by the provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, U.P. Agricultural Credits Act, 1973 and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act as well as the suit being under valued and the Court fee was not adequately paid were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision, which has also met the same fate. 15. At the very outset, insofar as the plea relating to the issue of limitation, which has not been made as an issue by the trial court is concerned, it is always open to the parties to move an appropriate application as provided under the law and to bring it to the notice of the trial court. 15. At the very outset, insofar as the plea relating to the issue of limitation, which has not been made as an issue by the trial court is concerned, it is always open to the parties to move an appropriate application as provided under the law and to bring it to the notice of the trial court. If any such issue arises from the pleadings and has been left out, the trial Court is competent to frame the same and for that this Court is not required to make any observation, rather the petitioner is at liberty to raise the said plea before the trial court. 16. So far as the other issues are concerned, it has already been held by the trial Court that certain parties who had been left out have now been impleaded in the suit. Thus, part of the order dated 30.03.2004 by which the issue of non-joiner has been decided in favour of the petitioner, he cannot possibly have any grievance in respect thereto and such part of the order cannot be assailed by the petitioner. Moreover, the plaintiffs have succumbed to the order and have impleaded the said parties. Thus, the issue regarding non-joinder has been settled and the petitioner cannot be aggrieved against that part of the order. 17. Insofar as the other issues which affect the jurisdiction of the Court is concerned, the trial Court on the basis of plaint averments and noticing the submissions of the respective parties has recorded a finding that the plaint does not appear to be hit by any provisions of law which has been relied upon by th petitioner before the trial court. 18. It will be relevant to notice that the issues have been decided on the principles applicable on a plea raised in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, where only the plaint averments and documents filed by the plaintiffs are taken into consideration. 19. Admittedly, the evidence has yet not commenced and thus at this stage, this Court does not intend to interfere and there appears to be no jurisdictional error or any error which is apparent on the face of the record or any finding which is perverse to persuade this Court to interfere. 20. Another reason for not interfering is that the matter is yet to be decided on merits after the parties lead evidence. 20. Another reason for not interfering is that the matter is yet to be decided on merits after the parties lead evidence. The findings recorded in the impugned orders are subject to any bar which may be found existing and established after the parties conclude their evidence and the Court is completely seized of the matter in the sense that it can finally decide the case. If at that stage the trial Court finds that the relief as claimed cannot be granted, it has the power and jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders, however, at this nascent stage, no error can be found in the impugned orders. 21. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is dismissed. The suit is of the year 2001, hence, the parties are directed to cooperate in trial and the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In case, the trial Court finds any party misusing the liberty, it shall be open for the trial Court to impose costs and such term as it deems just and the trial Court shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead their evidence shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law and an endeavour should be made to decide the proceedings preferably within a period of one year from the date an authenticated copy of this judgment and order is placed before the Court concerned. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as costs.