1 CRA No.993/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.993 of 2010 Shri Ramnagar Trust No.1 & Anr ... Applicants versus Harihareshwar Co-op Housing Society and others ... Respondents ... Mr. Kapil Moye and Mr.V.S. Vengurlekar i/b M/s.Crawford Bailey & Co. for the applicant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 3rd December 2010 P.C. 1. The Revision Application is directed against the order dated 13 July 2010 passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, whereby he directed that the four issues which were initially intended to be decided as preliminary issues would be decided along with the other issues after the trial. 2. Initially, by an order dated 9 December 2009, the Court framed four preliminary issues, one regarding jurisdiction of the 2 CRA No.993/10 Court to try the suit, second regarding the maintainability of the suit in the absence of notice u/s.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, third regarding the maintainability of the suit in the absence of sanction u/s.51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act and fourth regarding the maintainability of the suit by an unregistered co- operative society. Thereafter, after hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Judge felt that for the purpose of deciding the issues, evidence would be requird to be adduced and therefore, it would not be appropriate to decide the said issues as preliminary issues. He therefore directed that all issues would be heard and decided after the trial i.e. along with the other issues. That order is impugned in the present revision application. 3. Relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Meher Singh Vs. Deepak Sawhny & Anr, reported in 1999(1) Bom.C.R.107, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a Court deciding the preliminary issue is required to allow the parties to adduce the evidence and the decision on the preliminary issue so rendered would be final. Once a preliminary issue is decided, that decision cannot be re-opened at the time of final hearing of the suit. Learned counsel submitted that this contemplates recording of the evidence at the hearing of the preliminary issues and therefore, the order deferring the hearing on preliminary issues is contrary and needs to be set aside. It may be noted that the learned Judge has not decided the preliminary issues without permitting the parties to adduce evidence. All that 3 CRA No.993/10 he has done is that he has declined to treat the issues as preliminary issues and directed that they shall be decided at the time of the trial along with other issues. The decision is therefore not contrary to the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench in Meher Singh’s case. 4. Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall subject to the provisions of sub- rule (2) pronounce judgements on all issues. Rule 2 of Order 14 is a command to the Court to decide all the issues though the matter can be disposed of on a preliminary issue. It appears that the learned Judge has exercised its discretion not to treat the four issues framed earlier as preliminary issues but to decide them along with all issues at the final hearing and decision of the suit. The discretion exercised by the learned Judge is in consonance with the provisions of Order 14 and cannot be said to be arbitrary and calls for no interference in exercise of a revisional jurisdiction. 5. Even otherwise, in my view, the revision application is not maintainable. The impugned order directs all the four issues mentioned earlier would be decided at the final hearing along with other issues. If the revision application were to be allowed all that can be ordered is that the trial Judge should decide the issues as preliminary issue. Such an order would not dispose of the entire suit and in view of the proviso to section 115 of the Code of Civil 4 CRA No.993/10 Procedure, the revision application is not maintainable. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Rajabhau Mahadeorao Rahate Vs. Dinkar Shantaram Ingole, 2002(3) Mh.L.J 921. 6. For these reasons, there is no merit in the revision application which is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)