Honble KHAN, J. – Smt. Geeta Devi, the plaintiff-petitioner, filed a suit for declaration, possession and mesne profit against the defendant non petitioners in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 5, Jaipur City. One of the pleas taken by the defendant non-petitioners in their defence related to the valuation of the suit. The learned Civil Judge framed three issues. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 related to the question of ownership of the suit property. Issue No. 3 was in regard to the valuation of the suit property. The plaintiff-petitioner had valued the suit property at Rs. 3000/- The case of the defendant-non-petitioners was that the suit property was worth Rs. 40,000/- which not only attracted more Court fees but also took the suit beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court at Rs. 25,000.- only. Subsequent to the framing of the issues the defendant-non- petitioners through their application under 0.7 Rule 11 C.P.C., requested the trial Court to determine and decide Issue No. 3 first and reject the plaint on the ground of under valuation of the suit property. By his impugned order dated 3. 1. 1995 the learned Civil Judge accepted the said application and directed that Issue No. 3 shall be decided as a preliminary issue. He accordingly called upon the parties to lead evidence on that issue only. It is against that order that the present revision petition under Sec. 115 C.P.C. has been filed. (2). The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner is that Issue No. 3 being an issue of fact is required to be decided alongwith other issues. In this behalf of the learned counsel relied upon the case of Ikramuddin vs. Nizamuddin, (1). The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant- non-petitioners, however, is that issue No. 3 involves mixed questions of the law and facts and the decision thereupon may take the suit of the plaintiff out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge. The same is, therefore, required to be decided first as a preliminary issue. In support of his arguments the learned counsel referred to Sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for short, the Court Fees Act) and relied upon the cases reported in(2), (3), (4) and (5). (3). The same is, therefore, required to be decided first as a preliminary issue. In support of his arguments the learned counsel referred to Sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for short, the Court Fees Act) and relied upon the cases reported in(2), (3), (4) and (5). (3). On a careful study of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable there to, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity. (4). Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. no doubt empowers the Court to reject the plaint in the cases, inter alia, where the relief claimed is under valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time fixed by the Courts, fails to do so. Before 1976, the Court had no option but to decide a preliminary issue of law first, even if the decision on such an issue depended on determination of disputed facts. But the law stands substantially changed after 1976. Now the law declared in Rule 2 of Order 14 C.P.C. stands as under- O. 14 R. 2: Court to pronounce judgment on all issues : (1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a prelimi- nary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2). Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to– (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue). It may be noted that sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 embodies in it the general principle regarding the desirability of pronouncing judgment on all the issues notwithstanding the fact that the case may be disposed of on a preli- minary issue. The use of the word``shall in the language of this rule conveys the mandate that where a case may be disposed of on the basis of decision on a preliminary issue, it shall not be so disposed of and judgment on all the issues shall be pronounced. The only exception recognised in the application of this general rule is that which has been carved out in sub-rule (2) Sub-rule (2) provides that where in a suit issues both of law and fact arise and the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part of the case may be disposed of on the basis of the decision on the issue of law, then such issue of law may be tried first only when such issue of law relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a ban to the suit is created by any law. Thus the very nature of the issue of law which may be decided first has been clearly specified. It is thus clear that it is the issue purely of law which can be tried first and the settlement of other issues may be postponed. But if it is not an issue purely of law or is an issue involving mixed question of law and facts, the parties cannot insist that such an issue should be tried as a preliminary issue. A question of jurisdiction may be a pure question of law or a mixed question of law and fact. Such an issue can be tried as a preliminary issue only if it can be disposed of without recording evidence relating to the existence of the facts relevant to and having a bearing upon the determination of the jurisdiction. If the question of jurisdiction is dependent upon the ascertainment of certain facts after recording evidence, then decision on such question through a preliminary issue is neither desirable nor can it be insisted upon. If the question of jurisdiction is dependent upon the ascertainment of certain facts after recording evidence, then decision on such question through a preliminary issue is neither desirable nor can it be insisted upon. It, therefore, follows that where issues as to limitation or jurisdiction are to be considered on disputed facts, there is no mandatory requirement of law that evidence on them should be recorded first and they should be decided as preliminary issues. This view, I think, is supported by the decisions of this Court in (6) and RLW 1989 (2) 458 (Supra). (5). In the application of the provisions of the Court Fees Act to a situation like that in the instant case it has to be kept in mind that the primary purpose of that enactment is to charge due and proper Court fee on the reliefs claimed in a suit. For that purpose the classification of the suit is to be determined on the basis of the allegations and averments made in the plaint and the relief or reliefs claimed in the suit. The provisions contained in Secs. 10 & 11 of the said Act are required to be so construed as advance and promote the object of Rule 2 of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, a harmonious construction is required to be given to the provisions of the C.P.C. and the Court Fees Act. In doing so the word ``shall used in the language of Sec. 11 of the Court Fees Act is required to be assigned the meaning of the word ``may. This is particularly so in view of the use of non-obstante clause in the language of Sub-rule 11 of Rule (2) of Order 14 C.P.C. The words ``it may try used in the first part of language of Sub Rule (1) indicate that it is discretionary and not obligatory for the Court to decide an issue of fact and law as a preliminary issue. The object under lying this provision is to avoid piecemeal trial and protracted litigation which not only cause avoidable serious erosion in the very system of administration of civil justice but also tends to deny justice to the needy and rightful litigants. (6). The cases cited on behalf of the defendant-non petitioners were rendered before the amendment of 1976. The object under lying this provision is to avoid piecemeal trial and protracted litigation which not only cause avoidable serious erosion in the very system of administration of civil justice but also tends to deny justice to the needy and rightful litigants. (6). The cases cited on behalf of the defendant-non petitioners were rendered before the amendment of 1976. They also do not lay down a different proposition regarding the speedy and final adjudication of the disputes between the parties. Moreover, those cases do not directly speak over the situation involved in the present case. (7). In the instant case issue Nos. 1 & 2 relate to the question of ownership of the property in dispute. Regarding issue No. 3 the dispute between the parties is whether the property in suit is worth Rs. 3000/- as alleged by the plaintiff/petitioner or worth Rs. 40,000/- as contended by the defendant-non petitioners. The answer to the question involved may also affect the jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the suit. But this question cannot be answered without conducting an enquiry into the relevant facts and having a bearing upon the valuation of the suit property. Such an enquiry may be made through the evidence to be recorded on issue Nos. 1 and 2. Issue No. 3 is thus more of fact than of law. A major part of the eviden- ce to be recorded on all the three issues may be common. It is thus not only desirable but also the duty of the Court to try and decide all the issues simultaneously and not in piecemeal. Since the trial Court failed to act in the exercise of its jurisdiction in that way, the order under revision suffers from the vice of irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court. The impugned order has to be vacated. (8). In the result the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to try and decide all the issues in the suit simultaneously. Accordingly defendant-non-petitioners application shall stand dismissed with cost which is fixed at Rs. 500/-