Supreme Court: one issue cannot be tried as preliminary once full trial starts

The case concerns a dispute over whether a suit for declaration and recovery of possession was barred by limitation and whether the Trial Court erred in deciding the limitation issue as a preliminary matter before a full trial on all issues had commenced.

Who it concerns: Appellant: John Mathew; Respondents: Santha Paul & Ors. (Legal Representatives of the Plaintiff); Bench: Justice Arun Palli.

What the court decided

• The Court granted leave to appeal.
• The Court analyzed the legislative history and scheme of Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• The Court examined the distinction between framing an issue and trying an issue.
• The Court clarified the scope of the precedent Prithvi Raj Jhingta v Gopal Singh and Sathyanath v Sarojamani.
• The Court applied these principles to the present case to determine if the limitation issue could be tried preliminarily.

Also in the document

• The High Court had previously held that the Trial Court erred in deciding limitation as a preliminary issue because it involved mixed questions of fact and law.
• The High Court remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and evidence.
• The Supreme Court's analysis focuses on the procedural validity of trying one issue as preliminary once the trial on all issues has started.