JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition is directed against the order dated July 18,1983 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Alwar. Under the aforesaid order the learned Court decided the objection raised by the defendant-petitioner that the Court fees was not properly paid on the plaint. The learned Court has held that market value of the property is Rs. 61,985/- and because the plaint had been valued at Rs. 20,000/- the plaintiff non-petitioner should make the deficiency in the court fees by the date fixed by the Court. 2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the defendant petitioner has filed the revision petition. 3. The suit was filed for possession by the plaintiff-non- petitioner against the petitioner and the market value of the property was shown as Rs. 20,000/- and the court fees was paid on the aforesaid valuation. Before filing the written statement an application was filed that proper court fees has not been paid. The learned Court took evidence of the parties and decided the controversy and held that the court fees should have been paid on Rs. 61,985/- the market value of the property instead of Rs. 20,000/- on which court fees have been paid. 4. The contention of Mr. Maloo learned counsel for the defendant petitioner is that a revision lies against the aforesaid order whereas the contention of Mr. Joshi learned counsel for the non-petitioner is that the payment of court fees is a matter in between the State and the plaintiff and the defendant who has raised an objection has no right to file a revision against the aforesaid order and he can challenge the order. In support of their respective contentions as aforesaid Mr. Maloo learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of (1) Nemi Chand and another Vs. The Edward Mills Co. Ltd. and another (AIR 1953 Supreme Court page 28) and Mr. Joshi learned counsel for the non-petitioners has placed reliance on the case of (2) Shri Rathnavarmaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla (AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1299) . In the case of Nemi Chand (supra) the question was as to whether the memorandum of appeal was properly stamped. That appeal had arisen out of a suit for quashing the resolution. Joshi learned counsel for the non-petitioners has placed reliance on the case of (2) Shri Rathnavarmaraja Vs. Smt. Vimla (AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1299) . In the case of Nemi Chand (supra) the question was as to whether the memorandum of appeal was properly stamped. That appeal had arisen out of a suit for quashing the resolution. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that it was not maintainable as it related to the internal management of the company and that the appellants had no right to bring it without impleading the directors who were necessary parties to it. The appeal was filed and the memorandum of appeal was stamped with a court fees of Rs. 10/-. An objection was raised regarding the amount of court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. The Judicial Commissioner ordered that proper court- fees be paid thereon in a month and no reasons were given for this decision. The additional fee demanded was not paid and the judicial Commissioner dismissed the appeal with costs. In para No. 11 of the judgment the Judges of the Supreme Court said that in Section 12 when it says that such a decision shall be final between the parties only makes the decision of the Court on a question of court-fee non- appealable and places it on the same footing as other interlocutory non-appealable orders under the Code and it does no more than that. The Court further said that if a decision under Section 12 is reached by assuming jurisdiction which the Court does not possess or without observing the formalities which are prescribed for reaching such a decision the order obviously would be revisable by the High Court in the exercise of revisional powers. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that where a party thinking that a decision under Section 12 is palpably wrong takes the risk of his plaint being rejected or suit dismissed and then appeals from the order rejecting the plaint or from the decree dismissing the suit but not from the decision on the question of court-fee then it is open to him to challenge the interlocutory order even on the question of court-fee made in the suit or appeal. Thus in the aforesaid case a Bench of four Judges of the Supreme Court held that a decision under Section 12 of the Court Fees Act if the same has been reached by assuming jurisdiction which the Court does not possess or without observing the formalities which are prescribed for reaching such a decision the order obviously would be revisable by the High Court in the exercise of revisional powers. In the case of Sri Rathnavarmaraja (supra) it does not appear that any reference was made to the aforesaid case of Nemi Chand (supra) and a Bench of three Hon'ble 'Judges of the Supreme Court took a view that whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. The jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by Clause (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 possess or on the ground that the Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 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. Referring to Section 12(2) of the Madras Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act the defendant said that by Act 14 of 1955 enacted by the Madras Legislature which applied to the suit in question the defendant has been invested with a right not only to contest in the trial court the issue whether adequate court- fee has been paid by the plaintiff but also to move the High Court in revision if an order contrary to his submission is passed by the Court. There is no provision in the Madras Court Fees Act to file applied against the decision of the court of first instance on the matter of court fees payable in the plaint. There is no provision in the Madras Court Fees Act to file applied against the decision of the court of first instance on the matter of court fees payable in the plaint. The Court further held that the anxiety of the Legislature to collect court-fee due from the litigant is manifest from the detailed provisions made in Ch.III of the Act but those provisions 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. 5. A review of the aforesaid two decisions will show that whereas in the case of Nemi Chand (supra) it has been held that a revision will lie if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied whereas in the case of Rathnavarmaraja (supra) it has been held that no revision will lie in a matter between the State and the plaintiff and no harm would be caused to the defendant and the defendant is not harm (sic armed) to obstruct the progress of the suit by approaching the High Court. It will be appropriate to make a reference of another case decided by the Supreme Court in (3) The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar Hyderabad and another Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar Hyderabad (AIR 1973 Supreme Court 79) . In this case the court has held that if the order of the lower appellate court is within his jurisdiction High Court should not interfere even if the order is right or wrong or in accordance with law or not unless it has exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. A reference at this stage to Section 115 C.P.C. as it exists after the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1976 which came into force vide amendment 43 with effect from 1.2.1977 is necessary. A reference at this stage to Section 115 C.P.C. as it exists after the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1976 which came into force vide amendment 43 with effect from 1.2.1977 is necessary. Under Section 115 C.P.C. a revision will only lie if the case falls on any of the three clause (a) (b) or (c) but even if a case falls under any of the three clauses under the proviso it has been provided that High Court shall not under Section 115 C.P.C. vary or reverse any order made any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or other proceeding except where (a) the order if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding or (b) the order if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. The learned trial court has decided the issue of payment of court fees and has only said earlier it has ordered that the proper court fees would be Rs. 61,000/- and odd whereas the plaint was only valued at Rs. 20,000/- It cannot be said that the court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested. It can also not be said that the court has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. If the case therefore does not fall in any of the three clauses and even if it would have so fallen it could not have been said that the order if made in favour of the petitioner would have finally disposed the suit or if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice. 6. In the result the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The suit is for possession pending since 1980 and even written statement has not been filed because in such suits of possession it suits (to defendant) to delay the result of the suit as long as it can. I direct the trial court to proceed with the suit expeditiously. It may be stated that the dismissal of the revision on the ground as aforesaid will not prevent the petitioner to raise the question of court fee if he can legally raise in appeal.Revision dismissed. *******