Honble KOKJE, J. – These revision petitions raise a common point and therefore they were heard together and are being decided together. (2). In all these cases the trial Court has refused to allow applications moved by the defendant for the rejection of the plaint u/O. 7 R. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code hereinafter) and Sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1952. According to the trial Court, the written statements were not yet filed and the question of valuation cannot be decided in absence of a plea in the written statement and an issue framed thereon. The trial Court therefore, directed written statement tobe filed before the point could be decided. (3). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted firstly that, earlier , the Court had already passed an Order on 25.7.1991 to proceed to take evidence on the issue. However, all of a sudden on 21.10.1992 the Court reviewed the Order without application and passed a fresh Order which is the impugned Order. (4). The learned counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that there was nothing wrong with the valuation of the suit and suit being for cancellation of SaleDeed could be valued only as per the value shown in the Sale Deed of which cancellation was sought. (5). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. (6). It appears that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the real questions in controversy and the scope of its jurisdiction while dealing with the matter of valuation. The matter of valuation of a suit can arise for determination at two different stages. It may arise on an application of the defendant for rejection of the plaint u/O. 7 R. 11 of the Code claiming that the relief claimed is undervalued or relief was properly valued but the plaint was written on insufficient stamp papers. These cases are covered by O. 7 R. 11(b) (c) of the Code. In such cases, the Court has the power to require the plaintiff to supply the deficiency and if the plaintiff fails to do so, the plaint could be rejected. Secondly, the question can arise when it is raised in the written statement and an issue is framed on the pleadings. In such cases, the Court has the power to require the plaintiff to supply the deficiency and if the plaintiff fails to do so, the plaint could be rejected. Secondly, the question can arise when it is raised in the written statement and an issue is framed on the pleadings. In such a case the Court will have to consider whether an issue can be decided as an issue of preliminary or not. (7). In the present cases the Court refused to consider the application u/O.7 R. 11 of the Code observing that an issue relating to valuation of the subject-matter of the suit cannot be decided without framing an issue based on pleadings of the parties. There appears to be no foundation for such a sweeping observation. On the contrary when the written statement is filed and an issue as to the pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction has been raised, the Court will be precluded from deciding such an issue as a preliminary issue if the issue is merely an issue of law. (8). In Jagdish Rai & Ors. vs. Smt. Sant Kaur(1), it was held by the Single Bench of Delhi High Court that the question of Court-fee is a preliminary point which ought to be decided by the Court before proceeding to decide on merits of the case. In Resham Lal & Ors. vs. Anand Sarup & Anr(2), alsothe leamed Single Judge observed that issue relating to proper valuation of the suit for jurisdiction and Court fees must be tried as preliminary issue. In Rajabala Dasi V/s Radhika chorenRoy(3), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed that while valuing a suit attention is to be confined to the plaint alone and should not be paid to other circumstances subsequently influencing the judgment of the Court as to the value of the relief. In Tulsi Bibi vs. Farrak Bibi,(4) another Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has observed that the question as to what the proper Court fee ought to be on the plaint depends on the allegations which are contained in plaint. The Nagpur High Court goes a step further when in Kashinath Oke & Ors. In Tulsi Bibi vs. Farrak Bibi,(4) another Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has observed that the question as to what the proper Court fee ought to be on the plaint depends on the allegations which are contained in plaint. The Nagpur High Court goes a step further when in Kashinath Oke & Ors. vs. Tukaram Nilkanth Oke & Ors.(5) held that in considering the question of correct valuation the Court is not confined to what appears in the plaint but it is open to it to rely upon admissions by the plaintiff even in interlocutory matters in the suit. The sum total of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases is that the Court can decide on the basis of the allegations in the plaint and the material placed on record as to whether the valuation put on the subject-matter of the suit was not arbitrary and absurd. When the matter of the valuation is to be decided on the allegation made in the plaint and the material placed on record by the parties, it cannot be said that for deciding such an objection filing of written statement and raising of preliminary issue was necessary. The learned counsel cited several decisions before me to show that an issue as to the jurisdiction of the Court depending on the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit has to be tried as preliminary issue. A decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Gauri Shanker vs. Pukhraj & Ors.(6), was one such case cited. The objection in that case was that the suit was cognizable by revenue Court and consequently not cognizable by Civil Court. It is in this context that the Court has observed in that case that the occasion for deciding any point on merits raised in the suit can arise only after the conclusion is reached that the suit is cognizable by a Civil Court. The trial Court was therefore directed to decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding to try the suit. (9). This case is not an authority for the proposition that the question of jurisdiction can be decided as preliminary issue even when it depends on the decision of issues of facts or mixed question of law and facts. (10). In Vijay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Mst. (9). This case is not an authority for the proposition that the question of jurisdiction can be decided as preliminary issue even when it depends on the decision of issues of facts or mixed question of law and facts. (10). In Vijay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Mst. Shakuntala Devi & Ors.(7) the learned Single Judge of this Court held that no interference in revisional jurisdiction was possible even when the trial Court has refused to decide the question of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. (11). In my opinion, because of the provision u/O. 14 R. 2 of the Code, no issue which is not an issue of law alone can be decided as a preliminary issue and if authority is needed for the proposition, the Supreme Court in Major S.S. Khanna vs. Bridg. F.J. Dillon,(8) has observed that the Code confers no jurisdiction upon the Court to try a suit on mixed issues of law and facts as preliminary issues. (12). Thus the trial Court when it deferred the question of determination on an application u/O. 7 R. 11 of the Code till after written statement was filed and framed the issue, committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. An application u/O.7 R. 11 of the Code has to be decided at the earliest stage on the material on record i.e. the plaint and the documents filed along with it or when the leave of the Court before deciding the application. It has to be a summary enquiry to find out whether the valuation put on the subject-matter of the suit by the plaintiff was arbitrary and absurd. If it appears to the Court to be ex facie arbitrary or absurd, the Court may direct the valuation to be amended or Court fees to be paid in accor- dance with such valuation as the Court estimates failing which the plaint could be rejected. If it is not possible for the Court to determine the correctness of the valuation without taking evidence, the proper course for the Court was not to reject the plaint at that stage but keep the question open to be tried in the suit. When in the written statement, the valuation of the suit is objected to if it raises a pure question of law, the Court may treat it as a preliminary issue and decide it as such. When in the written statement, the valuation of the suit is objected to if it raises a pure question of law, the Court may treat it as a preliminary issue and decide it as such. But if the pleading raised a mixed issue of law and facts on the question of valuation of the suit, the only course open to the Court is to decide the issue after taking evidence along with all other issues. (13) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside. (14). The trial Court is directed to consider the application u/O. 7 R. 11 of the Code and Sec. 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit valuation Act, in the light of the aforesaid observations. If it finds after hearing arguments on the application that the valuation put by the plaintiff is arbitrary or absurd, it shall estimate the value at which the suit should be valued and give time to the plaintiff to value the suit accordingly and pay Court fees accordingly within the time fixed by the Court. If the Court finds that the valuation is not arbitrary or absurd, the application u/O. 7 R. 11 shall be rejected and the question will be kept open to be raised in the written statement. On filing of the written statement and framing issues if the Court finds that the issue of valuation of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Court is an issue of law alone, it shall treat it and decide it as preliminary issue. However, if such an issue is not an issue of law alone but an issue of fact or mixed issue of fact and law, the Court shall decide it along with all other issues in accordance with law. (15). With these directions, these revision petitions are disposed off.