JUDGMENT : Atul Kumar Jain, J. In this Civil Revision, Petitioners were defendants in the Trial Court, have challenged the order dated 16.01.13 passed by Civil Judge Junior division Ajmer District , Ajmer. In Civil Suit No. 46/2007 titled as Shri pet v. M/s Sun Pet pack JBP Pvt. Ltd. wherein application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the defendants/Petitioners was dismissed by that court. 2. During cause of the arguments, Petitioners have relied upon following rulings- 1. 2013(1) DNJ (Raj.) 305 S.N. Champawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. - In this case it was held that a court cannot try a suit which does not come within its financial jurisdiction. 2. 2010(1) DNJ (Raj.)64 Firangi Lal Ramjidas v. Jhanwar Lal - In this case it was held that if the valuation of the court fee and financial jurisdiction of the Trial Court is challenged by the defendant then the Trial Court should frame a preliminary issue on that point and then that preliminary issue should be decided as a first step. 3. Respondent has relied upon the following rulings- 1. 1990(1)WLC 534 M/s Kamal Engineering Works v. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.- In this case it was held that decision of the court regarding payment of court fee, being interlocutory is not revisable. 2. 1997(3)WLC(Raj.) 146 Sunder Lal v. Sugan Chand & Ors.- In this case it was held that the correct amount of the court fee, some times, can be ascertained only after decree. 3. RLR 1990(2) Iqramuddin & Ors. v. Nizamuddin-(158)- In this case it was held that provisions of Sec.11(2) of Raj. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act are directory in nature and not mandatory. It was further held in this case that the issue regarding valuation of suit property and court fee payable, need not the decided as preliminary issue because payment of the court fee is a fiscal matter and does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. 4. 2014(1) DNJ (Raj.) 53 Seeta Ram & Anr. v. Gulab Chand-In this case Application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. Was dismissed by the Trial Court wherein it was alleged that the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and the suit had been under valued. 4. 2014(1) DNJ (Raj.) 53 Seeta Ram & Anr. v. Gulab Chand-In this case Application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. Was dismissed by the Trial Court wherein it was alleged that the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and the suit had been under valued. It was held that valuation of the suit property and valuation of the suit being a mixed question of law and fact can be adjudicated only after recording of evidence so the high court refused to interfere in the order of the lower court. 5. 2013(6) Mh.L.J.693 Prahlad Singh v. Sudhir J. Bhalekar & Anr.-In this case it was held that even the preliminary issues may also require recording of evidence of the parties. 4. In the case in hand the Trial Court has already framed the issues and part of evidence of the parties has also been recorded. It is apparent that not only the amount of court fee but financial jurisdiction of the court below is under challenge before the Trial Court. 5. Hence it is hereby ordered that the issue no.3 framed by the trial court regarding financial jurisdiction of the trial court should be decided as preliminary issue and for this purpose both parties should be given an opportunity to lead evidence if necessary. 6. The Trial Court should decide this preliminary issue preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. This Civil Revision along with the stay Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court immediately. Revision disposed of.