IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 174 of 2008 Date of decision: 25.6.2008 Kewal Krishan Petitioner. Versus Jagar Nath and others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Nemo. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30th July, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No.II, Hamirpur, in so far as the said order has rejected the prayer of the petitioner (here-in- after referred to as the defendant) for treating issue No.2 as a preliminary issue. The suit, in question, was filed in the year 1993. The issues in the suit were framed and thereafter in the year 1997 an application was filed by the defendant praying that issue No.2 be treated as preliminary issue and also praying that a new issue be struck. This 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. application has been decided after 10 years on 30th July, 2007. The learned trial Court has framed an additional issue but has rejected the prayer of the defendant for treating issue No.2 regarding valuation of the case as a preliminary issue. The learned trial Court has held, and in my opinion rightly so, that this issue is a mixed question of fact and law. The question whether the value of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction has been wrongly fixed can only be decided after the parties lead evidence regarding the value of the suit property. Further more, I find that the suit was filed in the year 1993. Proceedings have been going on for more than 15 years and at this stage no order can be passed directing the Court to treat the issue as an preliminary issue. The impugned order was passed on 30th July, 2007 and the present petition has been filed on 21st June, 2008. In the petition, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner did not approach this Court earlier. Therefore, the petition is without any merit and dismissed in limine. 25th May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™