Issuances requiring evidence to determine whether all joint properties were included in a partition suit cannot be decided as preliminary issues.

The opposite parties filed a partition suit (Title Suit No. 98 of 2022) before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bishnupur

The petitioners (defendants) moved an application under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the CPC, requesting the court to frame and decide a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the suit

They contended the suit was barred because the plaintiffs had not included all co-owned properties in the "hotchpotch," leading to impermissible partial partition

The Trial Court rejected this application on May 16, 2025, holding that the inclusion of joint properties is a triable issue of fact requiring evidence

The petitioners challenged this rejection via the present revisional application

1. Whether the question of maintainability based on "partial partition" can be decided as a preliminary issue of law under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the CPC when it requires factual verification of property ownership

Order 14 Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates that a court must pronounce judgment on all issues unless an issue of law relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a statutory bar to the suit

Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited Vs. Praveen D Desai (2015) 6 SCC 412, which clarifies that triable issues requiring evidence cannot be decided as preliminary issues

Shri Priya Ranjan Naha Vs. Smt. Mamata Naha Ors (2022) regarding the rules of partition and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act concerning the burden of proof for facts within a party's special knowledge

The court reasoned that for an issue to be tried "preliminarily" under Order 14 Rule 2(2), it must be a pure question of law

the Court found that the mere mention of "other property" does not automatically prove such property is joint or co-owned

Determination of whether specific properties are "Ejmal" (joint) requires the parties to adduce evidence, produce records-of-rights, and undergo cross-examination

Since the "bar" to the suit is not apparent on the face of the law but depends on proving a "bundle of facts," the Trial Court correctly identified it as a triable issue rather than a preliminary legal bar

It affirmed that since the issue of partial partition involves factual disputes requiring an "acid test" of evidence, it cannot be disposed of as a preliminary issue

The revisional application (CO No. 2644 of 2025) was dismissed, and the Trial Court’s order dated May 16, 2025, was left untouched. No order as to costs was made