Judgment :- 1. Whether a defendant in a suit has the right to move the superior courts in revision against the order adjudging payment of court fee payable on the plaint, no more is a moot question in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ratnavarmaraja v. Vimala (1961 KLT (SC) 67). The Supreme Court has held thus in the said decision: "Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. How by an order relating to the adequacy of the court fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may feel aggrieved, it is difficult to appreciate. The defendant who may believe and even honestly that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint. It is a grievous error to entertain revision applications on questions of court-fee at the instance of the defendant when no question of jurisdiction was involved." (Headnotes) The question arising for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is in fact identical to the question, the Supreme Court considered in Ratnavarmaraja's case. The above position notwithstanding the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner who is the defendant in the suit and at whose instance the question as to whether the plaintiff has paid the correct court fee on the plaint was considered, is entitled to maintain the revision challenging the order holding that the court fee paid on the plaint is correct. In support of the above argument the learned counsel relied on a later ruling of the Supreme Court, in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and others (AIR 1973 SC 2384). Ongoing through the said ruling it is clear that the Supreme Court has restated the law it had declared in Ratnavarmaraja's case. In support of the above argument the learned counsel relied on a later ruling of the Supreme Court, in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad and others (AIR 1973 SC 2384). Ongoing through the said ruling it is clear that the Supreme Court has restated the law it had declared in Ratnavarmaraja's case. In this decision the Supreme Court has held as follows: "This court was there (in Ratnavarmaraja's case) dealing with an application for revision filed before the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and pointed out that the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court is strictly conditioned by clauses (a) to (c) thereof and may be invoked on the ground of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Subordinate Court or assumption of jurisdiction which the court does not posses) or on the ground that the Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity is the exercise of its jurisdiction, and the provisions of S.12 and 19 of the Madras Court Fees Act do not arm the defendant with a weapon of technicality to obstruct the progress of the suit by approaching the High Court in revision against an order determining the court fee payable. The ratio of that decision was that no revision on a question of court fee lay where no question of jurisdiction was involved. This decision was correctly interpreted by the Kerala High Court in Vasu v. Chakki Mani, AIR 1962 Ker. 84 where it was pointed out that no revision will lie against the decision on the question of adequacy of court fee at the instance of the defendant unless the question of court fee involves also the question of jurisdiction of the court." 2. The above ruling therefore will not render any assistance to the petitioner to sustain his plea. In this connection it is relevant to note that the learned counsel has no case that the question involves the question of jurisdiction of the court. His only argument is that, in as much as the issue was raised at the instance of the defendant, the defendant can maintain the C.R.P. challenging the order adjudicating upon the correctness of the court fee. This argument is without any merits in view of the ruling in Ratnavarmaraja's case. The CRP therefore is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed in limine.