2021 INSC 0259 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5124 OF 2013 Santosh Kumar @ Rana Ram Kalal                   .....Appellant Versus Ashok Chand and Others                               .... Respondents JUDGMENT N. V. Ramana, J. 1. The   instant   appeal,   by   way   of   special   leave,   is   directed against   order   dated   15.03.2010   passed   by   the   High   Court   of Judicature   for   Rajasthan   at   Jodhpur   in   Civil   Writ   Petition   No. 6517   of   2009   whereby   the   High   Court   allowed   the   writ   petition filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, and directed the Trial Court to decide certain issues as preliminary legal issues. 2. A   conspectus   of   the   facts   necessary   for   the   disposal   of   the appeal are as follows: the appellant herein filed a civil suit against 1 Non­Reportable the respondents in the year 2007 seeking,   inter alia , possession of the disputed property and a declaration that he is the owner of the disputed property.   The  Trial  Court,   vide   order  dated  22.04.2008, framed   as   many   as   eleven   issues,   of   which   we   are   concerned currently with the four issues extracted below: “ iii. Whether as narrated in para 9 and 12 of the plaint,   the   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   take   legal possession   and   to   receive   rent   of   the   concerned shops from the defendant Nos. 3 to 5? xxx vi. Whether as narrated in the Majid Ujrat in the written   statements,   Smt.   Kanta   Devi   and   Nikita on becoming Sadhvis after taking Jain Diksha on 17.2.2000 have suffered civil death, thus no sale deed was executed nor could have been executed by   them   or   by   their   alleged   power   of   attorney holder, thus the suit of the plaintiff is not legally maintainable as being based on unnecessary and non existent documents? xxx viii. Whether as narrated in para 9 of the written statement,   this   court   does   not   have   jurisdiction to hear this suit? xxx ix. Whether this suit is liable to be dismissed as being barred by law and being without any cause of action? ” 2 3. Thereafter,  the respondents  filed an application  under   Order XIV Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure before the Trial Court seeking that  the  above  issues  be  decided  as  preliminary  questions  of  law. On   19.05.2009,   the   Trial   Court   rejected   the   application   of   the respondents   on   the   ground   that   the   issues   raise   mixed   questions of  fact and  law,  and therefore require the parties to lead evidence before the same can be decided.  4. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the same.   Vide   the impugned order dated 15.03.2010, the High Court allowed   the   writ   petition,   thereby   setting   aside   the   order   dated 19.05.2009 passed by the Trial Court, and directed the Trial Court to decide the above issues as preliminary questions of law.  5. Aggrieved  by   this  order   of   the  High   Court,   the  appellant   has filed the present civil appeal, by way of special leave.   6. The  learned  counsel  for   the  appellant  submits that  the  High Court   erred   in   directing   the   Trial   Court   to   decide   the   issues   in question   as   preliminary   issues   of   law   when   they   related   to   mixed questions   of   law   and   fact.   Further,   the   learned   counsel   for   the 3 appellant also submits that the High Court, in its impugned order, has passed certain observations on the legal issues involved which would adversely affect his suit.  7. On   the   other   hand,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents submits   that   the   impugned   judgment   of   the   High   Court   does   not merit   any   interference   by   this   Court   in   its   jurisdiction   under Article   136   of   the   Constitution.   They   submit   that   no   prejudice   is caused   to   the   appellant   by   the   impugned   order.   The   counsel further   submits  that   although  there  is  no  stay  of   trial,  it  has  still not concluded despite the fact that the suit was filed as far back as in 2007.  8. Heard counsel for the parties at length.  9. While   the   counsel   for   the   appellant   strenuously   submitted that   the   issues   involved   mixed   questions   of   fact   and   law,   he   was unable  to  produce  any  material  to  substantiate   the  same.  On  the other   hand,   it   appears   that   the   appellant’s   claim   is   based   on documents executed by a power of attorney holder, as per his own plaint. Further, he has also admitted that the original owners had taken   “Jain   Diksha”   and   become   “Sadhvis”.   In   such   a 4 circumstance,   the   approach   of   the   High   Court   in   directing   the above framed issues to be decided as preliminary questions of law cannot   be   said   to   be   incorrect.     The   learned   counsel   for   the respondents   has   rightly   pointed   out   that   all   the   above   framed issues   relate   to   maintainability   of   the   suit.   Further,   on   being questioned   by   the   Bench,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant could not point to any prejudice that would be caused if the issues are   taken   up   and   decided   by   the   Trial   Court   as   preliminary questions of law.  10. Having   said   that,   we   are   inclined   to   agree   with   the submission   of   the   counsel   for   the   appellant   that   some   of   the observations   of   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned   order   may adversely   affect   his   case   before   the   Trial   Court.   Certain   stray observations of the High Court, particularly in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the impugned order, appear to prejudge the issues at hand.  11. We  are  therefore  not  inclined  to   interfere with  the  impugned order   dated   15.03.2010   passed   by   the   High   Court,   except   to   the extent   of   directing   the   Trial   Court   to   decide   the   issues   at   hand, and   the   suit,   without   being   influenced   by   any   observations   made by the High Court.  5 12. Keeping in mind the submission of the counsel for the parties that   the   present   trial   has   been   pending   for   a   long   duration,   we direct the Trial Court to decide the matter expeditiously on its own merits and in accordance with law.  13. The   Civil   Appeal   is,   accordingly,   disposed   of   with   the   above directions. Stay on operation of the impugned order, directed vide this Court’s orders dated 07.05.2010/12.05.2010 and 01.07.2013, stands vacated.    .........................J. (N.V. RAMANA) .........................J.  (SURYA KANT)  ..........................J. (ANIRUDDHA BOSE) NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 02, 2021. 6