I think it will be more appropriate approach to use this 10th dimension as second order construct e.g. 'service quality' in CFA instead of using it as separate dimension because this draw on the other nine dimensions. Does introducting this high order construct make sense theoretically? Additionally, you need to consider whether the construct is formative or reflective otherwise you may have issues with overall reliability of this high order construct.

Jawad, are you saying that these 10 dimensions are assumed (e.g., in the validation study) or that they are the result of an EFA?

Mr. Breitsohl, these are assumed. I want to know that to conduct EFA and CFA, should I use the 10th dimension i.e. summary of all 9 dimensions, or skip it because the 10th dimension does not stand alone; it combines all the other nine dimensions.

I would check how the authors of the original scale tested their measurement model. Unless there appears to be something inappropriate about their approach, I would test the same CFA model.

If you want to take one step back and see whether the factor structure should be modeled differently, you can use Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling.

See the "variable-centered" part in:

Morin, A. J., Boudrias, J. S., Marsh, H. W., McInerney, D. M., Dagenais-Desmarais, V., Madore, I., & Litalien, D. (2017). Complementary variable-and person-centered approaches to the dimensionality of psychometric constructs: Application to psychological wellbeing at work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(4), 395-419.