1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4888 OF 2008. Vishwakarma Sutar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit and ors....vs.. Sadashiv Vasant Bhagwant and ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: S.R.DONGAONKAR,J . Dated : 21st March 2009. Heard Mr.Narwade, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sonare, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3. None for respondent no.1. Respondent no.4 is not contesting party. The application of the petitioner for deciding the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue seems to be rejected. The said order is impugned in this petition. The learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) has observed in para nos.6 and 7 thus - 6. In view of authority AIR 1984 Bombay 60, Usha Sales Ltd. ..vs.. Malcolm 2 Gomes and others (Supra), the mandate in Order 14, Rule 2 of C.P.C. regarding deciding an issue relating to the jurisdiction of /Court or to the legal bar to the suit as a preliminary issue is discretionary and not mandatory. 7. In the present case as a plaintiff has submitted his and his two witnesses examination in chief, the proper course would be to receive the whole evidence of the parties and on the basis of that evidence decide the issue No.3-A which is a mixed issue of facts and law along with other issues on facts at the final hearing of the suit. For the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER Application is rejected. No order as to cost. It is pointed out by the learned A.G.P. that the plaintiff has submitted the evidence of the witnesses. The issue of jurisdiction i.e. alleged 3 preliminary issue is mixed question of facts and law and it can be decided along with other issue at the time of final hearing. No doubt, arguable point is raised by the petitioner, but as suit between the parties is ripe for evidence and it can be disposed of within a month or two, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) in this petition. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. However, the leaned trial judge is directed to decide the suit between the parties as early as possible and in any case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition is disposed of. It is made clear that none of the above observations shall influence the learned trial judge while deciding the matter; on merits, in any way. All contentions are kept open. JUDGE. chute 4