Order.- This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of Court-fee under section 33 of the Court-fees Act. The facts briefly are: The plaintiff in O.S, No. 2003 of 1956 on the file of the City Civil Court filed a suit on a mortgage impleading the mortgagor, the first defendant, and the second defendant, the petitioner herein, alleging that she is a puisne mortgagee. The second defendant filed a written statement stating that she is not a puisne mortgagee but a prior mortgagee. Issues 4 to 6 were raised on this contention. They were found for the second defendant and the learned Judge gave judgment in the following terms: “As a result of my findings on Issues 1 to 6, there will be a mortgage decree in favour of the plaintiff as against the first defendent as prayed for subject to the right of the second defendant. Time for payment six months.” At the time of drafting the decree the office, it would appear brought to the notice of the Judge that inasmuch as the second defendant claimed priority right in respect of her mortgage, she is bound to pay Court-fee on the written statement. This matter was gone into by the learned Judge, he directed that the second defendant should pay Court-fee on the amount claimed by her and the decree be drafted in Form No. 9 of Appendix D, Civil Procedure Code and granted time for payment till 10th July, 1959. The correctness of this order is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition. Under sub-section (2) of section 33 of Madras Court-fees Act which alone is relevant for the present purpose, two conditions are necessary to call upon a defendant who claims to be a prior mortgagee to pay Court-fee on his claim. The first condition is that he should pray in his written-statement that the amount due on his mortgage or charge be determined. The second is that there should be a direction in the decree for the payment of such amount to him. Neither condition is satisfied in this case, and therefore the order directing payment of Court-fee on the written statement of D-2 does not appear to be sustainable. There is yet another objection to the order of the learned Judge. The second is that there should be a direction in the decree for the payment of such amount to him. Neither condition is satisfied in this case, and therefore the order directing payment of Court-fee on the written statement of D-2 does not appear to be sustainable. There is yet another objection to the order of the learned Judge. On a report by the Court-fee Examiner, the predecessor-in-office of the learned Judge had already gone into the question whether Court-fee has to be paid on the written statement filed by the second defendant. In this order the learned Judge had held that the prayer made by the second defendant being superfluous and there being no prayer for payment, no Court-fee need be paid by her. It was not open to the succeeding learned Judge to review or revise this order. In Janaki Ammal v. Rangachari1, Ramachandra Iyer, J. held that where the question of Court-fee has been decided on merits by one Judge, the same cannot be reopened by the same Court. The stages at which it could be enquired into has been indicated by the learned Judge. They are: (1) Before the registration of the plaint or appeal. In such cases, it will be open to the Court to review, correct and further review its decision in the manner specified in section 12 (1) of the Madras Court-fees Act ; (2) After the suit or appeal has been registered, an issue on the question of Court-fee can be raised by the defendant or respondent and the Court should decide the matter. In such cases, the decision will be binding on the Court that rendered it, unless a fresh decision is asked for by the Court-fee Examiner ; and (3) on the objection of Court-fee Examiners under section 18 of the Act, when a decision has been given on the report of the Court-fee Examiners, no further review or reconsideration is possible except by an appellate Court under section 12 of the Act. My attention was however drawn to sub-section (3) of section 33 by the Government Pleader who was given notice in this case. That sub-section to my mind contemplates a stage when the prior mortgagee tries to withdraw his amount. That stage has not been reached. I am satisfied that the order passed by the learned Judge is incorrect. The same is therefore set aside. That sub-section to my mind contemplates a stage when the prior mortgagee tries to withdraw his amount. That stage has not been reached. I am satisfied that the order passed by the learned Judge is incorrect. The same is therefore set aside. I make no order as to costs. R.M. ----- Petition allowed.