IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 22882 of 2007(Y) --------------------------------------- OS.45/1999 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ V.N. MOHANKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. P.A. NARAYANAN,VADAKKINADATHU, VENNALA PO, EDAPPALLY, THEKKUMBHAGOM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAGADEESCHANDRAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. SNDP YOGAM A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER, NAMELY THE GENERAL SECRETARY. 2. V.K.NATESAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, S/O KESAVAN, SNDP OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. KAVYAD MADAVANKUTTY, DEVASWAM SECRETARY, 4. M.B.SREEKUMAR, MOHANVILASM, THUNGUKAVU PO,PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. MOHAN SANKAR, LAKSHMI NIVAS, PATHANAMTHITTA EAST PO, KOLLAM. 6. M.P.SHAJI BONSALE, MUGHAPPIL, KOZHAKKARA VADAKKU. 7. V.K.ASHOKAN, VELLAMPATHU VEEDU, BENETH ROAD, CHEMBOOKAVE, TRICHUR. 8. T.S.SANJEEV, THRAMMEL VEEDU, MURINJAKAL PO, KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA. 22882/2007 9. E.M.MURALEEDHARAN, EETTUMMAL VEEDU, ANUPAMA, SDPY ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. 10. A.K.SOMAN, AYYANKOYIKKAL, PUTHUPPALLY PO, KOTTAYAM. 11. B. YAMUNA PRASAD,VENUVILASAM, AMARAVILA PO, NEYYATTINKARA. 12. K.N.DIVAKARAN, KALARIKKAL, ADIMALI. 13. P.R.SADANANDAN,PULLARKKAD HOUSE, NEAR KSRTC, PERUMBAVOOR. PO, KUNNATHUNAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, S.N.TRUST THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.22882/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE IA. 1844/03 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE IA. 430/05 FILED BY RESPONDENTS ON 10.2.05. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA. 1844/03. EXT.P4;- COPY OF THE ISSUES SETTLED IN THE CASE. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. 430/05 DT. 13.4.07. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.22882 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of April 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the VI Addl.District Court, Ernakulam in I.A.No.430 of 2005 in O.S.No.45 of 1999 where it found that issue No.1 is left open for determination after adducing evidence. After the amendment of the C.P.C in 1976 under Order 14 Rule 2 (2) the word 'shall' has been substituted with the word 'may'. Unless it is a pure question of law, the court cannot consider it as a preliminary issue and pass orders. Now the court has opined that it is a mixed question of fact and law. The very purpose of the amendment was to avoid tires of litigation in each stage and therefore I direct the learned District Judge to try all the issues together after permitting both sides to raise issues in respect of their contentions and dispose it of in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/- CRPs 1918 & 1919/2003 -:2:-