Piecemeal trial and preliminary issues must reflect pleadings and evidence when additional issues are not pure questions of law.

Additional issues framed after the Bijai Succession Act, 1931 could not be treated as pure questions of law, because their determination depended on the pleadings and the changed defence. The High Court held that the provisions governing settlement or first hearing of issues did not justify disposing of the suits on those issues alone as if the remaining issues were irrelevant. Although piecemeal trial is not inherently impermissible, the trial court had to take evidence if necessary and decide the additional issues in that setting. The order below was therefore varied, and the view that the suits could be concluded on the additional issues alone was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the additional issues framed in the suits could properly be treated as pure issues of law and disposed of before the other issues, and whether the order directing such preliminary trial was sustainable.

Analysis: The additional issues arose after the enactment of the Bijai Succession Act, 1931, and were not mere abstract questions of law but required determination in the setting of the pleadings and the changed defence. The provisions relating to settlement or first hearing of issues did not govern the situation in the manner assumed by the court below. While piecemeal trial is not in every case impermissible, the trial court could not proceed on the footing that the additional issues were pure questions of law or that the suits could be disposed of on those issues alone as if the remaining issues did not exist. The proper course was to take evidence if necessary and decide those issues as directed.

Conclusion: The order of the court below was varied, and the additional issues were directed to be tried first with evidence if required; the view that they were pure issues of law and that the suits could be disposed of on those issues alone was rejected.

---