Order 14 Rule 2 CPC governs company petitions, and disputed maintainability objections cannot be tried as preliminary issues.

Order 14, Rule 2 CPC applies to company petitions under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, because such special proceedings remain subject to the Companies (Court) Rules and, where applicable, the CPC. The rule's limited exception for pure questions of law concerning jurisdiction or a statutory bar does not extend to disputed maintainability objections. Where objections depend on matters such as shareholding percentage or validity of consent, they raise mixed questions of law and fact and require evidence. Such objections must be decided with the main petition on merits, not as preliminary issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to a company petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956; (ii) whether the proposed objections to maintainability could be tried as preliminary issues.

Issue (i): Whether Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to a company petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Proceedings under sections 397 and 398 are special company proceedings, but they are still governed by the Companies (Court) Rules and, where applicable, by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The rule against piecemeal trial embodied in Order 14, Rule 2 is intended to require judgment on all issues except in the limited cases of a pure issue of law relating to jurisdiction or a statutory bar. Applying that rule does not frustrate the object of oppression and mismanagement proceedings. On the contrary, it avoids delay, repeated appeals, and the risk that a long-drawn preliminary trial may defeat effective relief and public interest.

Conclusion: Order 14, Rule 2 applies to proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue (ii): Whether the proposed objections to maintainability could be tried as preliminary issues.

Analysis: The suggested objections depended on disputed questions such as the percentage of issued share capital held by the petitioners and the validity of their consent. These matters required evidence and were therefore mixed questions of law and fact. They did not constitute a pure issue of law, nor did they relate to the court's jurisdiction or to a statutory bar of the kind contemplated by Order 14, Rule 2. Such objections were therefore required to be decided with the main petition on merits.

Conclusion: The proposed objections could not be tried as preliminary issues.

Final Conclusion: The company application failed, and the request to dismiss the company petition or to try the maintainability objections as preliminary issues was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: In company proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, preliminary objections that depend on disputed facts or mixed questions of law and fact cannot be tried as preliminary issues under Order 14, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 unless they involve jurisdiction or a statutory bar.

---