TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t disputed that Sushil Kumar Chandra died during the lifetime of his father, Indranarain Chandra. Opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 instituted Title Suit No. 32 of 1975 for partition of their 4/5th share in the property mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint. The remaining l/5th share, according to the opposite party-plaintiffs, belonging to defendant-petitioner. It is also not disputed that the suit property had been purchased at a Court sale in the name of the petitioner (defendant No. 1). It was the further case of the plaintiffs-opposite party that the suit property had been purchased by Indra Narain Chandra, the grandfather of the petitioner in the name of the petitioner (defendant No. 1) since he was at that time the only other adult male mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay any claim to the property on the ground that the purchase had been made by Indra Narain Chandra through whom the plaintiffs' claim. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner such a claim of the plaintiffs-opposite party was barred under the specific provisions of Section 66 (1) of the Code. In the circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court below ought to have decided preliminarily whether the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 66 (1) of the Code in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIV of the Code. 5. Mr. S. K. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has, on the other hand, contended that the impugned order does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill have to be decided by the trial court along with other issues that might arise on the pleadings of the parties. But the question that has to be answered in the present case is whether in refusing to decide this point as a preliminary issue before trying and deciding other issues the learned trying Judge has committed an error to justify interference by this Court in exercise of powers of revision. For examining this aspect of the matter it will be necessary to read the provisions of Rule 2 of Order XIV of the Code which runs as follows:-- 2 (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue the Court shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in my opinion makes it obligatory for the Court to try such an issue first in all cases. If, therefore, the Court is of opinion that in any particular case it will be more expedient to try all the issues together and therefore, if it refuses to try and decide any issue of law even on the points referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-rule (2) as a preliminary issue before taking up other issues. I do not think it has committed an error touching jurisdiction. In the impugned order the court below is of opinion that it is more expedient to try the issue regarding bar under Section 66 (1) of the Code along with other issues and the suit is also likely to be disposed of within a short period. It appears from the facts placed before me at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
