Heard learned counsel for petitioner who seeks to challenge interim order dated 03.08.2009 passed by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla on a Miscellaneous Application filed by petitioner. Briefly put, after a complaint was filed by respondent with State Commission claiming award of Rs. 20,09,298/- for deficiency in construction and on other premises, petitioner put a Miscellaneous Application before State Commission with host of issues, including want of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, State Commission dismissed Miscellaneous Application holding that State Commission had all pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. It is against these findings of State Commission that petitioner is in revision. We have looked into Miscellaneous Application also filed by petitioner before State Commission in which host of issues including core questions to be finally adjudicated, were shown as preliminary issues, for decision by State Commission. These issues which were sought to be adjudicated in Miscellaneous Application were : - (1) lack of jurisdiction (2) petitioner not being a service provider qua respondent (3) complaint involving intricate and complicated questions requiring elaborate pleading not triable in summary proceeding (4) controverting material allegations made in complaint about deficiency in construction (5) pendency of civil suit with identical relief sought, and lastly (6) non-joinder of parties, etc. Suffice to say that these are material issues which would require conclusive finding of State Commission, on consideration of them and these issues cannot be raised as preliminary issues, filing Miscellaneous Application. We accordingly find no merit in this revision, leaving it open to parties to address those issues before State Commission, when called upon. Revision petition is resultantly dismissed with no order as to cost. We have, however, restrained ourselves from making any comment on merit of the case, lest it prejudices the parties.