Preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 is discretionary; refusal to separate a Section 66(1) bar was not jurisdictional error.

Order XIV Rule 2 requires courts to decide all issues together, subject to a limited discretion to try a jurisdictional or statutory bar issue first. The refusal to treat a Section 66(1) objection as a preliminary issue was not a jurisdictional error because the rule does not make separate trial mandatory in every case. Where the trial court considers it more expedient to decide the bar question with the other issues, especially when substantially the same facts arise on both sides, no revisional interference is warranted. The trial court's choice to avoid splitting the trial was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether refusal to decide the plea of bar under Section 66(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 amounted to an error of jurisdiction warranting revision.

Analysis: Order XIV Rule 2 generally requires the court to pronounce judgment on all issues, with a limited exception where an issue of law relating to jurisdiction or a statutory bar may be tried first. Even then, the provision confers discretion and does not make it obligatory to try such an issue as a preliminary issue in every case. Where the trial court considers it more expedient to decide the bar issue along with other issues, and where substantially the same facts are involved in both questions, refusal to split up the trial does not by itself disclose any jurisdictional error.

Conclusion: The refusal to treat the Section 66(1) objection as a preliminary issue was within the trial court's discretion and did not justify interference in revision. The application was liable to be dismissed.

---