(1.) The present application in revision has been filed as against an order dt. 14-6-1988 passed by the learned 4th Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, by virtue of which application for deciding the question of jurisdiction as preliminary issue has been rejected.

(2.) The contention of the applicant is that under S.21, C.P.C. the objection as to jurisdiction having been raised at the initial stage the Court committed an error in rejecting the said application. It was further contended that the decision suffers from illegality insofar as it holds to the contrary while referring to the case Sausa Musa Sugar Works v. Chunnilal Choraria, AIR 1975 Gauhati 34. In that case the Court did not record finding that the case cannot be decided subsequent to the date of filing the written statement. It was further contended that the Courts view that while weighing the fact evidence shall have to be led twice was not a proper approach and in doing so it fell into error and thus it calls for interference by this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order and gone through the records. I do not find any illegality or any jurisdictional error committed by the Court white rejecting such an application. The Court has held that this question of jurisdiction would be decided after the filing of the written statement and after evidence are led since question of jurisdiction is such which can only be decided after such a stage.

(4.) There is nothing in S.21, which makes it mandatory for the Court to decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The said Section after it has been amended in 1977 incorporates that no objection regarding jurisdiction shall be allowed to be raised by any appellate or revisional Court unless such an objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. This Section is inapplicable to the fact of the present case. Since an objection of jurisdiction has been raised at the initial stage the principle enunciated therein could not be relevant for the purpose of this. There is nothing under S.21, C.P.C. which enables the question of jurisdiction to be raised and decided as a preliminary issue.

(5.) Order XIV, Rule 2, C.P.C. is a relevant provision under which an issue could be framed as a preliminary issue. Looking to the language of O.XIV, R.2, C.P.C. it is clear that the Legislature has left a discretion on the Court to come to the conclusion regarding framing of the preliminary issue. No doubt in doing so there is a rider on the Court that a preliminary issue should be an issue of law only and that relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. Under this, the Court has been given discretion either to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue or decide along with other issues. An issue of jurisdiction under it should be such which does not require any detail evidence to be looked into. It may be on the basis of admitted pleadings or question of jurisdiction which could be decided even before evidence is led. It is in such or such other circumstances where Court in its discretion thinks that it could be decided as a preliminary issue it should be decided.

(6.) However when the Court comes to the conclusion that the question of jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the detailed evidence of the parties which are almost identical with the matter which relates to other issues in the suit and the Court comes to the conclusion that this could not be decided as a preliminary issue it cannot be said that the Court committed any error of jurisdiction or illegality. In the present case admittedly the Court has recorded a finding that question of jurisdiction could only be decided after written statement is filed and evidence is led.

(7.) In support of his case, the learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on cases (Raichander Mohan Lal v. Permanand Sanghi, AIR 1978 Andh Pra 349) and the New India Assurance Co. v. Kamta Singh, AIR 1965 Pat 55 [LQ/PatHC/1964/9] . The principles laid down in the aforesaid cases are not in doubt, but the facts of the cases are totally different from the facts of the present case. There is nothing in the aforesaid cases nor any question to decide an issue as preliminary issue was raised. As I have said above, neither S.21. nor O.XIV, R.2, C.P.C. makes incumbent on the Court in every cases to treat an issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. Each case has to be examined by the Court on its own facts. In the present case, the Court having come to the conclusion on the special facts and circumstances referred therein that it cannot be said that it has either committed any illegality or deviated from the law laid down in any of the aforesaid decisions.

(8.) This revision is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order shall issue to the learned counsel for the applicant within three days on payment of usual charges. Petition dismissed.