1998 (8) TMI 628 - HC - Indian Laws

Court discretion on deciding preliminary issues before evidence

The court held that it was not mandatory to decide issues of jurisdiction or maintainability as preliminary issues, and discretion was left to the court ... - Issues:1. Whether certain issues should have been decided as preliminary issues before deciding the suit.Analysis:The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash orders rejecting their request to decide certain issues as preliminary issues before deciding the suit. The suit was filed by the Collector on behalf of Gaon Sabha, alleging the land belonged to Gaon Sabha and the petitioners had no right over it. The petitioners claimed they had a right over the land and argued that the suit was barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The trial court framed various issues, including whether the suit was barred by Section 49, whether the Collector had the power to file the suit, and whether the court fee paid was sufficient. The petitioners' application to decide these issues as preliminary issues was rejected, leading to subsequent dismissals of their revisions. The petitioners contended that Section 49 barred the court's jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters already decided by consolidation authorities. However, the court held that it was not mandatory to decide issues of jurisdiction or maintainability as preliminary issues, and discretion was left to the court. The intention was to avoid prolonging the suit by deciding preliminary issues first. Previous judgments highlighted the discretionary nature of deciding issues as preliminary. Ultimately, the court found no manifest illegality in the lower courts' decisions to not decide the preliminary issues before taking evidence on all issues, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.