ORDER The facts of this Civil Revision Petition disclose an instance of misuse of process of Court. 2. The sole respondent herein filed O.S.No.1443 of 1999 in the Court of the XVIII Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad, for the relief of declaration that her alleged termination through notice, dated 1-11-1999, issued by the Company Secretary of the first petitioner is illegal, inoperative and not binding upon her, and for a direction to the petitioners herein to pay the arrears of pay and allowances, which the respondent would have drawn, but for the order of termination. 3. The petitioners filed a written statement, Pleading factual and legal aspects. The trial Court framed the issues. At the instance of the petitioners, two more issues, touching upon the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit, and the adequacy of the Court fee paid by the respondent, were framed. 4. At a time when the trial of the suit was about to commence, the petitioners insisted that the preliminary issue, as to the maintainability of the suit, may be taken up. According to the petitioners, the respondent has to avail the remedy under the provisions of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") and Section 65 of the Act bars the suit. The respondent pleaded that she had, in fact, approached the authority under the Act, and the application/appeal was returned with an endorsement, dated 01-12-1999, that having regard to her designation and amount of salary attached to the post, she falls under the exempted category, under Section 73 of the Act. Through orders, dated 23-04-2004, the trial Court decided the preliminary issue in favour of the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even according to the respondent, she was discharging only clerical functions and in view of the judgment of this Court in S.S.Jaffar v. Labour Court, Hyderabad1 I mere description of the post and the salary attached to it are not conclusive factors. He further contends that the suit is barred under Section 65 of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent was designated as Supervisor, and her salary I as on the date of removal from service, was more than Rs.5,000/-, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the suit is barred. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent was designated as Supervisor, and her salary I as on the date of removal from service, was more than Rs.5,000/-, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the suit is barred. 7. Basically, the jurisdiction of civil Court is almost universal, as is evident from Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court must be specific and such clauses are required to be construed strictly. In the instant case, the respondent pleaded that she was employed with the petitioners and she was illegally terminated from service. With a view to work out her remedies, the respondent initially approached the authority under the Act. However, her application was returned on 01-12-1999, with an observation that the description of the post held by her and the salary attached to her post, do not enable her to avail the remedy under the Act. It was under those circumstances that the respondent filed the present suit. 8. The petitioners filed written statement and raised all possible objections. The issues were framed and at their instance two more issues were addE3d. Instead of proceeding with the matter on merits, the petitioners have insisted on determination of the preliminary issue. 9. The designation of the respondent, when she was in the employment of the petitioners, was "Supervisor", and that her emoluments exceeded Rs.1,600/-. In S.S. Jaffars case (1 supra), this Court laid down the parameters to determine the question as to whether the claim of an employee is exempted under Section 73 of the Act. If the description of the post held by the respondent and the salary attached to it are taken into account on their face value, the claim of the respondent falls outside the scope of the Act. Even assuming that the further adjudication is to be undertaken as to the nature of duties, etc., it may be done only after the evidence is recorded. An issue, on which evidence is to be recorded, cannot be treated as a preliminary issue, and the time of the Court cannot be wasted, by requiring it to address itself to such issues. 10. An issue, on which evidence is to be recorded, cannot be treated as a preliminary issue, and the time of the Court cannot be wasted, by requiring it to address itself to such issues. 10. Further, once it became clear that the respondent attempted to pursue her claim under the Act, and it was not permitted, the petitioners ought not to have raised the preliminary issue or objection. 11. The trial Court had appreciated the matter from proper perspective and the order under revision does not fall for any interference. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). The suit is of the year 1999 and it cannot brook any further delay. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter on priority basis.