IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17661 of 2011 Binay Kumar Nirala & Anr Versus Upendra Sharma ---------------------------------- 04. 11.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. By the impugned order dated 05.08.2011 passed by Sub Judge I, Begusarai in title suit no.166 of 2009, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 2 has been rejected. The suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the petitioners. Issues were settled and the plaintiff’s evidence has been closed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the application for deciding the question of maintainability of the suit as preliminary issue. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner has challenged the genuineness of the Mahadanama and, therefore, the Court below should have decided the same as preliminary issue. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has considered the facts of the case, the pleadings of the parties and also the relevant provisions of the C.P.C. relating to decide an issue as preliminary issue as provided under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. and has rejected the said prayer. Admittedly, for decision on the question which 2 is being raised by the petitioner requires evidence. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)