Judgment 1. The present review petition has been filed against the order passed by this Court in C.R. No. 5844 of 1999. 2. The petitioner herein had moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint for not affixing the proper Court-fee. On the pleadings of the parties, one of the issues framed was "Whether the suit is under valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction." 3. When thee case was fixed for evidence, the application was moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court by holding that as the issue had been framed regarding Court fee the same would be decided along with the other issues on the basis of evidence led by the parties. The revision petition was also dismissed by holding that there was no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order which would call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Arun Palli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITC Limited V/s. Debts Recovery Tribunal and others, 1998 (2) Supreme Court Cases 70 : AIR 1998 SC 634, Civil Appeal No. 8864 of 1997 decided on 19-12-1997 argued that the impugned order is liable to be reviewed as the basis for passing of the said order is, that no petition under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. was competent after the issues had been framed and the said view cannot be sustained in view of the judgment in the case of I.T.C. Limited (supra). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in case Jagdish Rai and others V/s. Smt. Sant Kaur, AIR 1976 Delhi 147, to contend that the question of Court-fee ought to have been decided as preliminary issue. 5. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find no force in the same. This Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the learned lower Court rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, and mere error or wrong exercise of jurisdiction cannot entitle the petitioner to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. There is no merit. Dismissed. 7. This Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the learned lower Court rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, and mere error or wrong exercise of jurisdiction cannot entitle the petitioner to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. There is no merit. Dismissed. 7. However, the observations made above may not be construed as an expression on the merit on the question whether the issue regarding Court-fee is to be tried as preliminary issue or not.