Territorial jurisdiction under CPC depends on pleaded cause of action; mixed law-and-fact issues cannot always be decided first.

Order 14 Rule 2 permits a court to decide a pure question of law as a preliminary issue, including territorial jurisdiction, but it does not permit mixed questions of law and fact to be tried in that manner. Territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC depends on the plaint averments and whether part of the cause of action arose within the forum. On the pleaded facts, the alleged purchase of shares, payment of consideration, receipt of bonus shares, and non-receipt of the original shares at Calcutta disclosed part of the cause of action within Calcutta. The City Civil Court at Calcutta was therefore competent to try the suit, and the jurisdictional objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta to entertain the suit and whether the issue of jurisdiction could be decided as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: Order 14 Rule 2 permits a court to try a pure issue of law first in limited cases, including jurisdiction, but it does not authorise trial of mixed issues of law and fact as a preliminary issue. Territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure depends on the averments in the plaint and on whether any part of the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction. The plaint alleged purchase of shares at Calcutta, payment of consideration there, receipt of bonus shares there, and non-receipt of the original shares at Calcutta. Those averments were sufficient to disclose a part of the cause of action within Calcutta. The petitioner having itself invited an early decision on jurisdiction could not thereafter complain that the issue was decided before evidence.

Conclusion: The City Civil Court at Calcutta had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, and the objection to jurisdiction was rejected.

---