CRP 412/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The order dated 24.08.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Tinsukia in Titl e Suit No.34/2009 rejecting the petitioner-defendant’s prayer for framing a prel iminary issue on the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial Court had bee n rejected. I have heard Mr. Z. Mukit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ghosh, lea rned counsel for opposite party. The opposite party has instituted Title Suit No.34/2009 in the above Court prayi ng for a decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties under the Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, read with Sariat Act etc. and for recovery of Stridhan. In his written statement, the petitioner, apart from responding to the pleaded ave rments in the plaint on the merit of the issues, inter alia disputed the territo rial jurisdiction of the learned trial Court and thus sought rejection of the pl aint in limini. Prior to the filing of the written statement, he had similarly raised the issue of want of territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial Court. By order dated 15.07.2009, on a perusal of the plaint, the learned court below rejected the pra yer observing that the question of jurisdiction as raised in the facts and circ umstances of the case was a mixed question of law and fact and thus could not be decided as a preliminary issue. This order has remained intact and has attaine d finality in the suit. After the filing of the written statement as above, the petitioner again has ra ised this contention and has urged for framing a preliminary issue on the basis thereof under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter for short referred to as the Code). By the impugned order this plea has been rejected on the ground that an identical prayer had been earlier rejected by the order date d 15.07.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the averments made in the pl aint, more particularly those relating to the place of custody of the Stridhan p roperties has urged that the learned trial Court at Tinsukia lacks jurisdiction and that therefore the impugned order if sustained would result in uncalled for protracted litigation between the parties and thus ought to be interfered with and a direction need be issued to the learned Court below to frame a preliminary issue on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction and decide the same before adju dicating upon the other facets and the lis. Mr. Ghosh with reference to the decision of the Apex Court in C.V. Rajendran and another, v. N.M. Muhammed Kunhi, AIR 2003 SC 649 has argued that as the issue h ad once been examined and decided by the learned Court below vide its order date d 15.07.2009 the contention bearing on want of territorial jurisdiction is hit b y the doctrine of res judicata and thus the impugned order does not call for any interference. The pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced have been duly evaluated . The sequence of events as is revealed by the pleadings of the parties is a ma tter of record. A plain reading of the order dated 15.07.2009 discloses that th e learned Court below thereby had rejected the petitioner’s-defendant’s prayer for framing a preliminary issue on the aspect of its territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the same involved a mixed question of law and facts. This order, it is su bmitted at the Bar has remained unaltered. In that view of the matter, the dete rmination made therein vis-à-vis the tenability of the plea of framing a prelim inary issue on the question of territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial Cou rt has attained finality. Any fresh decision by the same Court on this issue wo uld thus be barred by the doctrine of res judicata. That the principle of res judicata applies as between two stages in the same pro ceeding so that if an issue decided at an earlier stage against a party, it cann ot be allowed to be re adjudged at a subsequent stage thereof has been repeatedl y propounded by the Apex Court amongst others in C.V. Rajendran and another, v. N.M. Muhammed Kunhi (Supra). In this premise the ground of rejection of the pet itioner’s-defendant’s prayer to frame a preliminary issue on the point of territ orial jurisdiction as contained in the impugned order dated 28.04.2009 cannot be faulted with. The petition lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.