S. N. BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THESE two revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 25-8-87 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, by the plaintiff, asking the plaintiff to file additional court fees. THESE two revisions arise out of similar facts and circumstances and involve common questions of law and therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner filed two separate suits for specific performance of agreement dated 21. 3. 1983 and permanent injunction against the defendants, Before filing the written statement, the defendants filed separate applications u/s 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'court Fees Act') and under Order 7 Rule 10 C. P. C. THE trial court decided these applications vide its impugned orders dated 25-8-1987 accepting the applications and asking the petitioner-plaintiff to pay the additional court fees. It is against these orders that the present revision petitions have been filed. A preliminary objection has been taken by the defendants that the revision petitions are not maintainable against an order directing the plaintiff to file additional court fees. In this connection, learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance on Budhoo Lal vs. Mewa Ram (l) wherein it has been held that decision on preliminary point as to territorial jurisdiction is not 'case decided; Firm Lal Chand Sain vs. Firm Behari Lal Mehar Chand (2) wherein also it had been held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for the revision of an interlocutory order and Sham Narain Singh vs. Basudeo Prasad Singh (3) wherein it has been observed that the High Court should not interfere in revision with an order demanding additional court fees from the plaintiff since the plaintiff has another and proper remedy open to him by way of appeal on rejection of plaint. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the defendants on Messrs Gupta & Co. vs. Messrs Kripa Ram & Brother (4) wherein it had been observed that a mere decision given by a Court in the trial of the suit as to the amount of the court fee payable does not amount to a case decided nor is it necessarily an irregularity in procedure orillegality or a refusal to exercise jurisdiction and therefore no revision on such a decision is competent and maintainable. Reliance has also been placed on Paras Nath vs. Ram Bahadur (5) wherein also it had been observed that no revision lies to the High Court from an order of the Court below calling upon the plaintiff to make good the deficiency of any amount of the court fees paid by him. It is merely an interlocutory order and as such not open to revision. It does not amount to a 'case decided nor is it necessarily an irregularity in procedure or an illegality or a refusal to exercise jurisdiction as would justify interference under Section 115 C. P. C. Learned counsel for the defendants has further placed reliance on People Bank of Northern India Ltd. vs. Kanaya Lal (6) wherein relying on the cases of Firm Beharilal Mehar Chand, Messrs Kripa Ram & Brothers and Paras Nath (supra) it had been held that no revision lies from order of Court calling upon plaintiff to make good deficiency in Court fees either under Sec. 115 of C. P. Code or Government of India Act (1935 ).
(3.) HE has further placed reliance on Mt. Rupia vs. Bhatu Mohton (7) wherein it had been observed that the Court has jurisdiction to revise the valuation put by the plaintiff in a suit to obtain a declaratory decree with consequential relief. Reliance has also been placed on Kanhaiya Lal vs. Ram Kishan (8) wherein, relying on an earlier decision in Messrs Kripa Ram & Brothers (supra) and other cases it had been reiterated that when a question of court fee is decided and it is held that the court fees paid by the plaintiff is sufficient or insufficient no case is decided by the court and the order is not revisable. Lastly, he has placed reliance on Baldeo Giri Saelhk vs. 1st Addl. Civil Judge (9) wherein the High Court while dealing with the wirt petition refused to review the earlier order passed by it, dismissing the revision petition under sec. 115 C. P. C. . . . . . . the order of the lower court regarding inefficiency of court fees on the Part of the petitioner has another remedy available by the court of an appeal in case the decree is passed against him. ;