Surinder Singh, J. - (1.) An interlocutory order peered by the Subordinate Judge First Class, Hissar, deciding a preliminary issue as to whether the trial Court, i. e., the Civil Court at Hissar, had jurisdiction to try the suit, is sought to be impugned in this Revision Petition. A suit was filed by Ram Pat against his seven sons (two petitioners who are the sons from his first wife and respondents Nos. 2 to 6 who are his sons from the second wife for a declaration that the decree passed earlier in Civil Suit No. 1482 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class, Fatehahad on April 20, 1972, would not affect his rights to the suit property as the said decree had been obtained by fraud. The suit was contested only by the petitioners, i.e., the sons from the first wife of Ram Pat. The property in dispute is admittedly within the territorial jurisdiction of Fatehabad tahsil where a Subordinate Judge is functioning. It is also conceded that normally this suit ought to have been instituted in the civil Court at Fatehabad being the Court of the lowest grade competent to try the suit in the case in hand, however, the suit was filed at the headquarters of the district in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, who entrusted the same to the Subordinate Judge First Class, Hissar, for disposal. Before the trial Court proceed, a preliminary issue in regard to the jurisdiction of the Hissar Court had been framed, and the matter was decided by the order which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present Revision Petition. In the said order the learned Subordinate Judge held that the Court at Hissar did have jurisdiction to try the suit. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioners has said emphasis on the provisions of section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which every suit is required to be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. The contention is that the Court at Fatehabad being the Court of the lowest grade, the suit could have been instituted only in that Court, and not in the Court at Hissar. The contention appears plausible in its first blush, but a deeper probe reveals a contrary picture, with a saw to provide buoyancy to his contentions, the learned counsel has sought to rely upon several authorities which may be noticed in brief. The first case which is cited is Sewa Singh Vs. Tara Chand and another, A.I.R 1956 Punjab 30 , a Single Bench judgment of the Punjab High Court. This authority will not, however, detain us long, as the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in this case was not favoured by a Division Bench of the same Court in Arya Pratindhi Sabha, Punjab Jullundur Vs. Dev Raj, Vir Bhan and another, A.I.R. 1963 Punjab 208. , In the later decision, after a detailed review of the case law on the point, it was concluded that the rule of law contained in section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure was merely intended for the protection of the Courts of the higher grade and it did not otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Courts. It was further held that the filing of the suit in the higher Court would not mean that the suit was not filed in the Court of proper jurisdiction if that Court was otherwise competent to try it. Another case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is Sharma Singh Vs. Sadhu Singh, A.I.R. 1928 Lahore 484 but that case is distinguishable on facts, as the central issue under consideration was the question of limitation and the point as to whether the suit was filed in the proper Court or not, was examined only in reference to that issue. There is no such thing in the present case and all that we are required to consider is whether the Court at Hissar has the jurisdiction to try the suit or not. (4) The decision on the preliminary issue arrived at by the trial Court is in consonance with the interpretation of law and there is no occasion to interfere with the same under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The Revision Petition is consequently dismissed, The parties have been directed through their counsel to appear before the trial Court for further proceedings on 13-9-1976. Revision dismissed.;