JUDGMENT 1. - This is an unfortunate litigation between the father and the son. 2. The plaintiff-respondent who is the father has filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant, his son, alleging that he had given him a licence to occupy the house and that he had revoked the licence and that he should be asked to vacate the house. The defendant-petitioner countered the allegation and maintained that he had right to stay on in the house. 3. Issues were framed on 12-10-1972. On 16-11-1972 the petitioner filed on application under Order 14 Rule 5 praying that an additional issue whether Court fees has been paid properly arises out of pleading as the value of the house was more than Rs. 5,000/-. The trial court by the impugned order dated 28-11-1972 accepted this application and has framed an issue regarding the Court fee. It however noted that it is not indicated bow the wrong and that as it was not a pure question of law the issue will be decided along with the suit. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court. 4. The contention of Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that as the issue of court fee had been raised it was incumbent on the trial court to decide this as a preliminary issue and be wants to invoke section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. I do not agree. Section 11 of the said Act provides that any defendant may plead hat the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued and that the fee paid is not sufficient. But it is only if the objection is taken on the basis of the materials and allegations contained in the plaint itself that there is a compulsion on the trial Court to decide this issue before hearing of the suit. In the present case admittedly the only objection raised in the written statement was that the court fee was not proper on the frame of the suit. The objection that the valuation of the house is more than Rs. 5,000/- was filed by a separate application after the written statement had already been filed. It is a evident that evidence will have to be led to find out whether the valuation of the house is more than Rs. The objection that the valuation of the house is more than Rs. 5,000/- was filed by a separate application after the written statement had already been filed. It is a evident that evidence will have to be led to find out whether the valuation of the house is more than Rs. 5,000/- or not and whether it has any effect on the suit. The trial court has taken the view that as this issue requires evidence this will be decided along with the other issues. I cannot find any error of jurisdiction in this approach as there is no compulsion in law to decide this issue as a preliminary one. 5. The revision petition is therefore not maintainable and is dismissed with no order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******