JUDGMENT B. N. Sapru, J. - The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) had filed a suit as an indigent person. Permission to sue as an indigent person was granted. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 12th February 1987. No order was made requiring the plaintiff to pay the court fee as required under Order 33 Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. An application for-restoration of the suit was filed by the respondent. The application was allowed on 2-3-1987 and the suit was restored. Thereafter, an application was made by the defendant-appellant on 7th May, 1987 praying that the court should pass an order as contemplated by Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure requiring the plaintiff-respondent to pay the court fee. Thereupon the court made an order on 18th May, 1987 requiring the respondent to pay the court fee. Thereafter, the respondent made an application to the court praying for review of its order dated 18th May 1987. This application was allowed by the court on 11th August, 1987. The court below was of the view that an order requiring to pay the court fee by the respondent could only have been made when the suit was finally disposed of and the earlier order dated 18th May, 1987 requiring the plaintiff-respondent to pay the court fee is erroneous. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the defendant-appellant has filed this present appeal. 3. The trial court has relied upon a decision given by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raghubar Dayal, as he then was, in the case of Kalawati Devi v. Chandra Prakash and others, reported in AIR 1959 Alld 37, while considering the provisions of Order 33 Rules 9 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court held that the court fee can only be demanded from the plaintiff at the end of the proceedings. 4. Order 33 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure casts a duty on the court to pass an order requiring the plaintiff to pay the court fee in the circumstances mentioned in the rule itself. 4. Order 33 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure casts a duty on the court to pass an order requiring the plaintiff to pay the court fee in the circumstances mentioned in the rule itself. If the court fails to make an order when those contingencies have arisen, the State Government is entitled under Rule 12 to apply to the court for an order of payment of the court fee under Rules 10, 11 or 11-A. The courts cannot either suo moto or on an application of the defendant make such order. 5. The matter of court fee is essentially between the plaintiff and the State. The other parties do not have an interest in the matter. In the circumstances, it would not be open to the court below to pass an order on 18th May, 1987 requiring the respondent to pay the court fee on the application of defendant-appellant. The court has merely reviewed an illegal order. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The interim order dated 14-10-1987 is vacated.