ORDER : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, present Civil Revision Application is decided finally at the admission stage. 2. By way of present Civil Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the applicant-original opponent has challenged the impugned order dated 25.04.2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dholka (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) below Exh.1 in HMP No. 16 of 2014 (New No. 34/2015). 3. After having heard learned advocates for the parties, it appears that the applicant is the wife of respondent. The respondent (original petitioner) has filed the HMP No. 16 of 2014 seeking divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Vide order dated 13.01.2015, the Trial Court had raised the issue as to whether the petition of the petitioner was barred by jurisdiction, to be tried as preliminary issue. Learned Advocate for the respondent (original petitioner) having objected against framing of the preliminary issue, the Court vide impugned order dated 25.04.2017 has directed that the said issue of jurisdiction shall be decided alongwith the other issues as framed at Exh.25 on 2 9.02.2016, after giving an opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Vimal Patel appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Harshrajsinh S. Vaghela for the applicant has submitted that the Trial Court having been prima facie satisfied that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, had framed the preliminary issue however, the respondent having objected against the same, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order. According to him, there was no averment in the main petition as regards the Court at Dholka having jurisdiction to entertain the petition, in view of section 9 of the said Act. 5. However, learned Advocate Ms. Ketty Mehta for the respondent has submitted that it is the discretion of the Court as to whether the issue of jurisdiction should be tried as preliminary issue or not. In the instant case, the Trial Court having found that the said preliminary issue should be decided alongwith the other issues, it could not be said that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is bad. 6. In the instant case, the Trial Court having found that the said preliminary issue should be decided alongwith the other issues, it could not be said that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is bad. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates for the parties and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, it appears that the Trial Court having initially framed the issue as regards the jurisdiction, to be tried and decided as preliminary issue, the Court should have decided the same as the preliminary issue. The Court at this juncture does not think it proper to go into the merits of the said issue. However, suffice is to say that it would be appropriate if the issue of jurisdiction is decided by the Trial Court as the preliminary issue. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 25.04.2017 is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to decide the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue after giving opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties, as may be necessary to do so. 8. Present Civil Revision Application is allowed accordingly.