ORDER.
This is a revision petition filed against the order, dated 27-10-1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge, whereby issue relating to territorial jurisdiction of Court, was refused to be decided first, as a preliminary issue. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that respondent No.1 filed a suit on 27-7-1985 against respondents Nos.2 to 8 and the petitioner for recovery of Rs.9,58,000, being the price of wheat threshers sold to them. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff manufactured wheat threshers in his factory at Faisalabad and the defendants had been purchasing the wheat threshers and paying price thereof at Faisalabad. Defendant No.1 is the firm and the defendants Nos.2 to 7 are its partners. It is alleged that defendant No.3 (petitioner herein) paid two cheques in lieu of the wheat threshers sold but the same were not honoured. Similarly, defendants Nos.8 and 9 also issued some cheques but they too were dishonoured. It was particularly stated that the Civil Court at Faisalabad had jurisdiction to try the suit because the wheat threshers were sold at Faisalabad and the plaintiff had the right to receive the price at Faisalabad. Defendants Nos.2 and 4, to 7, defendant No.3 and defendants Nos.8 to 9 respectively filed three independent written statements. In view of the various pleas raised in the pleadings following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: --
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 1, 2, 4to9.
(2) Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause-of action? OPD 1, 2, 4 to 7.
(3) Whether this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD 8 and 9.
(4) Whether only defendant 'No.3 in his individual capacity had been dealing with the plaintiff? If so, to what effect? OPD 3.
(5) Whether defendant No.3 handed over car bearing No.VRA 32 of the value of Rs.66,000 and also paid a sum of Rs.92,000 in lieu of the two cheques for Rs.84,000 and Rs.74,000, which were required to be returned by the plaintiff under the settled practice? OPD 3.
(6) Whether the plaintiff committed forgery in the cheques pertaining to the amount of Rs.84,000 and raised the amount to Rs.6,84,000? OPD 3.
(7) Whether the plaintiff entered into an agreement for the supply of 20 wheat threshers at the rate of Rs.16,500 with defendants Nos.8 and 9 and failed to supply any wheat thresher to them? OPD 8 and 9.
(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery, of Rs.9,58,000 from the defendants as set out in the plaint.
Issue No.3 relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit was framed in view of the preliminary objection raised by defendants Nos.8 and 9 that the transaction was made at Vehari and the cheques were issued at that place. On 17-10-1994, when the suit was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff, defendants moved an application under' Order 14, Rule 2, Order 7. Rule 10 and section 151, C.P.C. For treating issue No.3 as preliminary issue and for its disposal without recording of the evidence. The learned trial Court vide impugned order, dated 27-10-1994 rejected the application by taking the view that, "this is an issue which requires evidence from both the parties, so it seems just and proper that all the issues including the issue relating to jurisdiction of this Court may be decided after recording the evidence of both the parties because it would obviate the possibility of remand of the case for retrial on merits in case the decision of this Court on this preliminary issue is set aside by the appellate Court."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant No.3 in the suit), assailing the impugned order submits that the issue relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Court has to be necessarily decided in the first instance as a preliminary issue and the remaining issues can be touched by the trial Court after it comes to the conclusion that the Court has necessary jurisdiction to try the suit. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance on Muhammad S.1 m v. Hafiz Ahmad Din PLD 1975 Lah. 425.
4. The case relied upon by the learned counsel is of little help to him. It was a guardianship matter in which it was conceded that the question of issue relating to territorial jurisdiction should have been decided separately from the issue on merits relating to the welfare of the minors. The question of law decided in that case was a different one i.e. Whether the impugned order rejecting application for deciding preliminary issue first in time and separately from other issues was a case decided and thus revisable or not, under section 115, C.P.C. The facts of the present case are, however, entirely different. In the instant case the issues on merits and territorial jurisdiction are overlapping and intermingled. The case of the plaintiff is that the wheat threshers were sold and supplied to the defendants at Faisalabad, while defendants have pleaded that these were sold at Vehari. Similarly, the question as to where the cheques were issued and where were they payable will also have bearing on the question of jurisdiction of the Court. Regarding cheque of Rs.84,000 petitioner took the stand in his written statement that the plaintiff had forged this amount to Rs.6,84,000. From the issues framed and- pleadings of the parties it is evident that almost the same evidence will decide the issue of law pertaining to territorial jurisdiction of the Court and the remaining issues on mend.
5. In order to find out the intention of law with regard to the trial of issues of law and facts, a reference will have to be made to Rule 2 of Order 14 and Rule 3 of Order 15, C.P.C. Rule 2 of Order 14 reads as follows: -- "Where issues both of law and of tact arise in the same suit; and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined."
Rule 3 of Order 15, C.P.C. Reads as follows: -- "Where the parties are at issue on some question of law or of fact, and issues have been framed by the Court as hereinbefore provided, if the Court is satisfied that- no further argument or evidence than the parties can at one adduce is required upon such of the issues as may be sufficient for the decision of the suit, and that no injustice will result from proceedings with the suit forthwith, the Court may proceed to determine such issues, and, if the finding thereon is sufficient for the decision, may pronounce judgment accordingly, whether the summons have been issued for the settlement of issues only or for the final disposal of the suit: Provided that, where the summons have been issued for the settlement of issues only, the parties or their pleaders are present and none of them objects.'
(2) Where the finding is not sufficient for the decision, the Court shall postpone the further hearing of the suit, and shall fix a day for the production of such further evidence, or for such further argument as the case requires."
6. The combined effect of the aforesaid two rules is that where issues in a suit framed by the Court are such that some of them are issues of law and some of them are issues of fact; then the issues of law should be tried first if they do not require lengthy and prolonged evidence and can be decided without any delay, and the findings thereon are sufficient to decide the whole case without having recourse to issues on facts. In these circumstances the issues of law should be decided separately in the first instance. But, however, if to decide an issue of law, which means the preliminary issue, Court is called upon to record elaborate evidence of the parties, then such an issue should be decided alongwith the remaining issues on. Merits. This will be all the more necessary in a case like the present one, where the same set of witnesses are required to be produced to prove the issues of law and facts. Similar controversy was answered by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in Javaid Iqbal Butt v. Mst. Nighat Ara 1982 SCM R 1111 in the following words:-- ..
"However, we consider that the Courts below were right in thinking that the evidence required to prove the issue of jurisdiction would be the same as that which was required to establish whether the respondent did indeed have any cause of action. Hence the issue of jurisdiction and the issues on merits had been considered together."
In Bashir Ahmad and 8 others v. Aftab Ahmad and 2 others PLD 1976 Lah.1433 the trial Court's order was upheld by taking the following view: -- "In the present case, as discussed above, it is not possible to dispose of issues Nos.1, 2 and 5 separately from the other issues, as similar evidence will have to be led on all the issues. In the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the applications of the petitioners for deciding the aforesaid issues as preliminary issues."
Where the evidence is required to be recorded for deciding a preliminary issue, it must be tried and decided alongwith other issues on merits, except in a case where the preliminary issue on the basis of which the whole suit can be decided requires no evidence or such evidence which can be immediately produced by the parties. The purpose of deciding the issues of law and facts together, where the evidence has to be recorded for resolving these issues is that parties should not be subjected to piecemeal trial of the case. Not only for the reason that the piecemeal trial may induce the parties to improve their case and prompt witnesses to tell lies, but because it will end in prolongation of the litigation. The all important aim of administration of justice is that justice should not only be done but it should be done without inordinate delay, hence the maxim "justice delayed, justice denied". If in a case like the present one, parties are called upon to lead their evidence on a preliminary issue first but the case cannot be decided as a result of finding on such issue, then the result will be that the parties will have to lead the evidence on the remaining issue. This will unduly delay the decision of the case, and such an effect must be avoided by Courts.
8. It may be stated that even where a preliminary issue requiring to be decided first is not so decided, it does not amount to an illegality. It is merely an irregularity. It was held by this Court in Muhammad Nasrullah v. Muhammad Ayaz Khan and another PLD 1975 Lah.886 that issue about jurisdiction or court-fee should be decided as a preliminary issue but not doing so is merely an irregularity and does not vitiate the proceedings. The overriding purpose of the various provisions contained in the Rules enumerated in the First Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code is to regulate the proceedings of the Courts, with a view to do justice to the litigants. These rules should be so interpreted and applied that the justice is made handy and quickly available to the parties. The legislature has recently made its intentions more clear by enacting Act XIV of 1994, whereby further amendments have been incorporated in the C.P.C., to ensure that cases are decided by Civil Courts expeditiously, by avoiding cumbersome procedure. Unfortunately it is more than notorious that cases in Civil Courts prolong for generations. This is evident in the present case as well, This suit was filed in 1985 and after a lapse of nine years when the impugned order was passed, it was still at the stage of plaintiffs evidence. It is the duty of the Court to minimize the delay in deciding the lis pending before it.
9. For what has been discussed above, the learned trial Court has taken the correct view that since the preliminary issue in question requires recording of evidence, it cannot be decided separately in the first instance. There being no illegality in the view taken by the learned trial Court, no case is made out to interfere with the same. Accordingly, civil revision is dismissed in limine. Learned trial Court directed to decide the suit within the next three months positively, even if it has to take day to day proceedings.