[ 2025:JHHC:12619] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1149 of 2023 1. Anisur Rahman, aged about 58 years. 2. Mansur Rahman, aged about 65 years. 3. Azizur Rahman, aged about 73 years. All are sons of Late Fazlur Rahman, resident of Village Mohra, P.O. Sonbad, P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioners Versus 1. Madan Bauri son of Late Bhutu Bauri. 2. Ganesh Bauri son of Late Dhiren Bauri. 3. Kartik Bauri son of Late Harshu Bauri. 4. Punu Bauri son of Late Harshu Bauri. All are resident of Village Mohra, P.O. Sonbad, P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara, Jharkhand. 5. Haresh Miya son of Late Samsuddin Miya, resident of Village Mohra, P.O. Sonbad, P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara, Jharkhand. ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Ms. Vineeta Prakash, Advocate. : Mr. A.K. Choudhary, Advocate. ------ 25/ 28.04.2025 Heard Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Vineeta Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.09.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-III, Jamtara, in Original Suit No. 81 of 2019, whereby learned court has been pleased to dismiss the petition filed under Order-XIV Rule 2(2) of the CPC, which was filed for deciding the suit on preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that [ 2025:JHHC:12619] -2- O.S. No. 81 of 2019 was instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of right, title, interest and possession and further confirmation of possession over the suit property and for the permanent injunction over the suit property and for the other reliefs. He submits that after registration of the suit, notices have been issued and pursuant to that the defendants first party, who are the petitioners herein have appeared and filed their written statement on 16.04.2022 challenging the maintainability of the suit as well as the jurisdiction of the court. He further submits that the learned court has wrongly passed the said order and the said petition has been rejected. According to him, the suit was barred by jurisdiction and the learned civil court is having no jurisdiction to decide the said issue as per the settled law, as the matter is arising out of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. It is an admitted position that the suit has been instituted for the prayer as disclosed in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, thus, the right, title, interest, possession and confirmation of possession and further permanent injunction are the subject matters of the suit. The learned court has considered that the issue in question for deciding the suit has already been framed and said issue is also one of the subject matter of deciding the suit. The learned court further found that in the suit in question, several points of fact regarding same previous cases are alleged by the defendants, which facts cannot be considered with the point of law prevail at Santhal Pargana and has further found that there are mixed question of facts and law. In view of that the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the said petition. 5. A petition under Order-XIV Rule-2(2)(a) of the CPC can be decided without looking into any document and the evidence and in that parameters, the court is satisfied that by way of preliminary issue, the [ 2025:JHHC:12619] -3- suit can be decided. 6. So far as the facts of the present case is concerned, the learned court has found that there are several points of facts regarding same previous cases and in view that the learned court has found that there are mixed questions of fact and law are there and if such a situation is there, certainly that cannot be decided by the preliminary issue and for that the parties are required to lead evidence in a suit. In a suit, there are bundle of facts and only the ground of jurisdiction is not there of deciding the said suit and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the said order. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of either of the parties, as this petition has been decided considering the parameters of Order-XIV Rule 2(2) of the CPC. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-