S.N. BHARGAVA, J.—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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 5. 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. 6. 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). 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner plaintiff has placed reliance on Lakshi Narain Rai vs. Dip Narain Rai (10) wherein the Division Bench held that an order deciding whether additional court fees should be paid or not is an order deciding the case within the meaning of S. 115 C.P.C. and is open to review. This case has been noticed by the full bench in Messra Kripa Ram and Brothers (Supra) and the full bench had taken a contrary decision. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on AIR 1947 Allahabad 340 wherein the learned Single Judge had again, even after noticing Kripa Rams case (supra) (FB) had held that the order of the court calling upon the plaintiff to make the deficiency good in the amount of court fees paid by him on the plaint is a case decided within the meaning of Sec. 115 C.P.C. and the order is revisable. Learned Single Judge also referred to the later decision of a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in support of his decision i.e. Mt. Mohri Kunwar vs. B. Keshri Chandra (11), The case of Mohri Kunwar has not been noticed in the latter decision of the High Court in Kanhaiya Lals case (supra). 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on M/s Himalayan.........Prvt Ltd. vs. Maharashtra Electricity Board (12) wherein this court has held that in the suit for declaration if the contract in question stands cancelled, the plaintiff is not liable to pay damages claimed by the defendant, and the court fees payable was under section 24(e), of the Act and the case was not covered u/s 23(1) of the Act, and the plaintiff had discretion to value his relief. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited Yaqoob Ali vs. Firm Hajiji Khanji Ibrahimji (13) wherein it has been held that the interlocutory order relating to jurisdictional error if it falls within the expression "any case which has been decided", can be challenged in revision provided the aggrieved party satisfies the High Court that the order has resulted in failure of justice or has caused irreparable injury to him. Mere fact that such an order can be challenged by setting forth an objection in the memo of appeal against the decree u/s 115 C.P.C. would not be sufficient for not invoking the revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 C.P.C. These observations were made while their lordships were dealing with the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C. and not with regard to a decision asking the plaintiff to pay additional court fee. 14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner has also placed reliance on Har Vilas vs. Kalyan Prasad (14) wherein this Court interfered in revision in the matter where the trial court had rejected the application for examining a handwriting expert to prove the document inspite of the fact that such an Order could be challenged in appeal, and observed that the High Court is empowered to rectify an order of subordinate court at any stage and revision is no bar merely because correctness of such an order could be challenged in an appeal. This authority also does not relate to an order passed by the trial court asking to pay the additional court fees. 15. Reliance has also been placed on Mannu Das vs. Kisto Das (15) wherein their lordships had observed that if the valuation of the suit property has been put by the plaintiff arbitrarily or unreasonably, the court can interfere within exercise of powers u/Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 16. I have carefully gone through the case file, considered the various submissions made at the bar and the authorities cited before me. 17. There is no direct authority of this Court brought to my notice on the point in question. A mere decision given by a court in the trial of a suit as to the amount of court fees payable does not amount to a case decided nor is it necessarily an irregularity in procedure or illegality or refusal to exercise jurisdiction and therefore, no revision against such an order is competent. Moreover it is an interlocutory order and as such not open to revision. I am fully in agreement with the observations of Honble Suleman CJ. in M/s Gupta & Co. (Supra) a full bench decision wherein after discussing in detail the meaning of the word case it has been held that no revision on such a decision is competent and maintainable. I am fully in agreement with the observations of Honble Suleman CJ. in M/s Gupta & Co. (Supra) a full bench decision wherein after discussing in detail the meaning of the word case it has been held that no revision on such a decision is competent and maintainable. The decisions on preliminary issue regarding the court fees does not result in deciding the whole suit and does not amount to a decision of the case. Moreover, the correctness of the order can be challenged in appeal u/s 105 C.P.C. Thus, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the defendants is upheld. 18. In the result, both these revision petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs. Three months time is allowed to the petitioner-plaintiff to make good the deficit court fees in the trial court.