ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2.8.2022 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Class-II, Mahasamund in Civil Suit No.S-39A/2021, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order 14 Rule 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) to decide the issue about the jurisdiction and court-fee as preliminary issues was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent has filed civil suit for vacant possession of the suit property after demolition of the house and after dispossession of the defendant. It was averred that the plaintiff/respondent is elder brother of the petitioner/defendant. It was further averred that the suit property was purchased by the respondent/plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 25.1.1984 and the petitioner/defendant has entered to the suit property as a tenant since 25th March, 2014 on consideration of Rs.500/- monthly rent. The plaintiff/respondent has valued the suit on the basis of demolition of the house to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and 20 times of the revenue fixed at the rate of Rs.11/- to the tune of Rs.210/-, total valuation of the suit was made of Rs.10,210/-. The petitioner/defendant has filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC for treating the issues No.3 and 4 about the jurisdiction and valuation as preliminary issues, but by the impugned order the trial Court has held that the said issues are to be decided with other issues framed. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr.Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, would submit that the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable. He would further submit that if the suit would have been valued correctly, then the Court of Civil Judge Class-II will not have jurisdiction to try the suit. The issue is preliminary in nature and it will go to the root of the matter. The trial Court could not postpone the determination of these issues because to decide at the end of the trial to hold that the suit is not properly valued, it would mean waste of time of the Court and the parties. The very nature of these issues require that they must be determined first, before the other issues are tried. The trial Court could not postpone the determination of these issues because to decide at the end of the trial to hold that the suit is not properly valued, it would mean waste of time of the Court and the parties. The very nature of these issues require that they must be determined first, before the other issues are tried. He placed reliance of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sathyanath and another v. Sarojamani reported in (2022) 7 SCC 644 . He further placed reliance of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Jham Singh Sobharam Lodhi reported in 1976 MPLJ 584 . 4. Per contra, Mr.A.N.Bhaka, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, would support the impugned order. Upon being asked, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that as he has pleaded in the plaint that the petitioner/defendant has entered into the suit property as a tenant and specific provision for valuation of the suit between landlord and tenant has been given, but the plaintiff/respondent has not made valuation as per such terms. However, Mr.Bhakta submits that the suit has been valued property as per Section 7(v) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (for short ‘Act of 1870’) as the land forms paying annual revenue to Government. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with writ petition. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sathyanath (supra) has observed as under:- “33. We find that the order of the High Court to direct the learned trial court to frame preliminary issue on the issue of res judicata is not desirable to ensure speedy disposal of the lis between parties. Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code had salutary object in mind that mandates the Court to pronounce judgments on all issues subject to the provisions of sub-Rule (2). However, in case where the 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 suit first, if it relates to jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. It is only in those circumstances that the findings on other issues can be deferred. It is only in those circumstances that the findings on other issues can be deferred. It is not disputed that res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact depending upon the pleadings of the parties, the parties to the suit etc. It is not a plea in law alone or which bars the jurisdiction of the Court or is a statutory bar under clause (b) of sub-Rule (2). ” 7. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Jham Singh Sobharam Lodhi (supra) has observed as under:- “3. Shri Rai’s contention is that since evidence will have to be recorded on these issues, they cannot be decided without evidence being recorded and they cannot be treated as preliminary issues. 4. Broadly speaking, issues are of four categories:- (1) Pure questions of law, which are preliminary, i.e. which would go to the root of the case and on their decision, the suit may be disposed of. (2) Mixed questions of law and fact, which are preliminary in nature and may result in the disposal of the suit. (3) Pure questions of law which may not be preliminary, i.e., which may not dispose of the entire suit. (4) Questions of law, which are mixed with facts on which facts there are independent issues of fact to be tried. I am clearly of the opinion that issues of the first two categories must be disposed of first, and even if it is necessary to record evidence, the Court must record evidence on those issues only, and, postpone the decision of the other issues of facts until after the issues of law have been determined. As regards the issue of the third and the fourth categories, it is discretionary with the Court whether to decide them first or to postpone their determination along with other issues of fact. In S.S.Khanna v. S.J. Dillan, AIR 1964 SC 497 , their Lordships have laid down thus:- “Under Order 14, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 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 the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after issues of law have been determined. The jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from the issues of fact may be exercised only where in the opinion of the Court the whole suit may be disposed of on the issues of law alone.” After these observations, their Lordships say:- “The Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and fact as preliminary issues. Normally all the issues in a suit should be tried by the Court; not to do so, especially when the decision on issues even of law depends upon the decision of issues of fact, would result in a lop-sided trial of the suit.” (Italics by me.) Their Lordships’ last-mentioned observations relate to the third and fourth categories of issues above-mentioned. In Santoshchandra v. Gyansunderbai in his order of reference Tare J. (as he then was), observed that where questions of court fee, limitation and untenability of the suit are raised in a suit, it is always desirable to try them as preliminary issues and not postpone them to the stage of the final judgment. 5. I need not repeat what was said in Balchand v. Basanti Devi, 1972 MPLJ 812 . Before trying a suit on merits, the trial Court is bound to decide first the preliminary issues, for instance, those which relate to the maintainability of the suit, that is to say, issues which fall within the first or second category, Madanlal v. M/s. Shri Krishna Lime Co., 1970 MPLJ Note 111, supports the view I take. Similarly, Ramashankar v. Motilal, 1975 MPLJ 43 , is also in line with the view I take.” 8. Considering the submissions particularly considering the issues about the jurisdiction of the Court and valuation of the suit, which are required to be decided firstly, the said provision was expressly interpreted by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sathyanath (supra) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Jham Singh Sobharam Lodhi (supra) that the question which would go to the root of the case though mixed questions of law and fact are preliminary in nature and the same may be required to be disposed of at the first stage and the Court shall postpone the decision of the other issues of facts until after the issues of law have been determined. 9. 9. Further, in the pleading, the plaintiff/respondent has made averment that the petitioner/defendant has entered to the suit premises as a tenant, however, valuation has not made accordingly and further, it has been categorically mentioned that the suit land is urban abadi land situate at Mahasamund area. If the land is situate in urban abadi land, then the valuation is required to be at the rate of market value. 10. The said issue has been held by this Court in the matter of Jagatram v. Beersingh and another [Writ Petition (Art.227) No.297 of 2018, decided on 12.09.2018 after placing reliance of Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Balu Deochand Kulmi and another v. Fundibai Amichand Kulmi reported in AIR 1972 MP 22, in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has categorically held that even when a suit is filed for a share of an estate not being any specified part thereof, the Court fee payable would be on the market value and not on the multiple to be worked out. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly, it is set aside. The trial Court is directed to determine issues No.3 and 4 as preliminary issues. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost(s).