V.D. Bhargavam, J. - (1.) FIRST Appeal From Order No. 29 of 1955 is connected with Civ. Revision No. 57 of 1955. Both of them arise out of the same suit which is still pending in the trial court and both of them have been filed by the Defendant. The Civil Revision had been filed against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, dated 4 -2 1955. By that order he had decided two of the issues arising in the case They were: (1) whether the court had jurisdiction to try the suit and (2) whether the amount of court -fee paid was sufficient. The learned Civil judge heard arguments on these issues at length and came to the conclusion that the court had jurisdiction and the court -fee paid was sufficient and therefore, he directed the suit to proceed. Against that order this revision application has been filed.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Plaintiff opposite party has taken a preliminary objection on the ground that both these orders were interlocutory orders and no revision lies as no case as been decided. For the proposition that no revision lies against the decision on an issue, even if it be the issue of jurisdiction, he placed reliance on the case of Budhoo Lal and Anr. v. Mewa Ram : AIR 1921 All. 1. That was a case in which the question involved was of jurisdiction and three Judges were of the opinion that when the issue was decided no case had been decided within the meaning of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure and no revision lay. Since 1921 there have been various cases were this authority has been followed. Inter alia, the case of Malkhan v. Mohar Chand and Ors. : 1954 AWR 593 : AIR 1955 All. 307 is another case of a Bench of this Court, where the same proposition had been laid down. Thus, we are of opinion that no revision lies against an order deciding the issue of jurisdiction. On the question whether a revision lay against an order passed in favour of the Plaintiff on a matter of court -fees, learned Counsel for the opposite party had argued that under Section 6A a specific right of appeal has been given to see party from whom extra court fees is demanded. Right of revision has also been given to the Inspector of Stamps to challenge any finding given by the Court and in these circumstances if no right had been given to the Defendant to challenge the finding of the Court below it should be deemed that the Legislature never intended to give that power. We entirely agree with the argument of the learned Counsel. Besides this there is a decision on this point of this Court reported in the case of S. Mazhir Husain v. Anjuman Islamia, AIR 1947 All. 404 in which it was held that: A Defendant has no locus standi under Section 6A to challenge the order calling upon the Plaintiff to make good the deficiency in Court fee (as for instance by objecting that the amount of Court fee ordered to be paid is not sufficient.
(3.) WE entirely agree with the above decision and in the circumstances we think that no revision lies also against the order of the learned Civil Judge deciding that the Court -fee paid by the Plaintiff was sufficient. We accordingly, see no force in this revision and dismiss it with costs. The stay order is discharged.;