A. G. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order dated 16-11-1989 passed by the Third Additional Judge to the court of District Judge, Indore in C. O. S. No. 5a of 1988 directing the plaintiff to make good the alleged deficit court-fee Rs. 37850 / -. ( 2 ) IT is not disputed before me that the valuation of the suit is Rs. 15,64,000 / - and the court-fee payable is Rs. 56,600 / -. However, the applicant has paid court-fee only to the extent of Rs. 18,750 / - in view of the position which existed before the amendment in the Court-fees Act by Act No. 24 of 1975 by the State of M. P. whereby the ceiling on the payment of court-fee has been lifted. The vires of this amendment were challenged before the Constitution Bench of this Court and the Constitution Bench has already held that the amendment is intra vires of the Constitution. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Constitution Bench some special leave petition is pending before the Supreme Court and it is on the strength of the pendency of that petition that the applicant claims that for the present it may be allowed to proceed with the suit without making payment of deficit courtfee on the undertaking given by the plaintiff to make good the deficiency as a result of the Supreme Court decision being against their stand taken before the court. However, the court did not acceded to the request of the plaintiff and directed the plaintiff to pay the court-fee. Hence this revision petition. ( 3 ) SHRI Chitale learned counsel for the applicant argues that in case the S. L. P. is decided in favour of the applicant holding that the amendment of the M. P. Govt. lifting the ceiling on the court-fee is ultra vires of the Constitution, then the court-fee paid shall not be refunded easily. The plaintiff may have to resort to another civil suit for the refund of the excess court-fee which may ultimately be found to have been paid in excess of the law. Therefore, the discretion of the Addl. District Judge should have been exercised in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff may have to resort to another civil suit for the refund of the excess court-fee which may ultimately be found to have been paid in excess of the law. Therefore, the discretion of the Addl. District Judge should have been exercised in favour of the plaintiff. ( 4 ) ON the other hand Shri Paunekar, Government Advocate argues that once the matter has been decided by the Constitution Bench, the law as it stands to day should be followed by the courts and there is no discretion left in the court to carve out any exception in the legal provisions. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the respective contention of the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view, that this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. The petition is very clear. The Amendment Act No. 24 of 1975 has come into force from the date of its Notification in the Gazette. The challenge to the vires of the amendment proved futile and it was held by the Constitution Bench that the amendment is not ultra vires of the Constitution. It is true that some party has approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition and the S. L. P. having been admitted an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. But the fact remains that no stay order has been passed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in absence of any interim order by the Supreme Court the Courts cannot stay their hands from the implementation of the law as it stands only in anticipation of a judgment of the Supreme Court which, according to the plaintiffs, may be in their favour. Such a course of action is not permissible under the law. No exception can be carved out in the existing law only by anticipating a judgment against any or some provisions of the law. ( 6 ) SHRI Chitale further makes a request that a direction may be given that in case the Supreme Court holds the Amendment Act lifting the ceiling on the court-fee as ultra vires then the court-fee paid in excess of the schedule be refunded to the plaintiff without resorting to any legal remedy. ( 6 ) SHRI Chitale further makes a request that a direction may be given that in case the Supreme Court holds the Amendment Act lifting the ceiling on the court-fee as ultra vires then the court-fee paid in excess of the schedule be refunded to the plaintiff without resorting to any legal remedy. I am not inclined to agree with this contention also of the learned counsel in view of the fact that this revision and the request made by Shri Chitale is in anticipation of a judgment in their favour. If this course of action is adopted then the court will have to take one or the other view in all the matters which are pending before the Supreme Court or other courts. The judgments are passed on the facts and the existing law based on the the interpretation of law and appreciation of facts. Judgments are not passed in anticipation of a judgment of a Higher Court. However I sympathise with the nationalised Banks which have a hard time in recovering their debts which have been very freely distributed for the progress of the Nation. Shri Chitale states that there is some move on the part of the Banks for getting the court fee retaionalised. This is a matter for the Executive and the Legislatures to decide and the court has nothing to do with that. However, in the light of what has been observed by the Supreme Court in a bunch of writ petitions filed against the State of Karnataka, by various petitioners reported in AIR 1989 SC 100 I do hope and expect that the State Government shall take an early decision in the matter in the light of what has been observed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid the revision petition is dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The applicant is directed to deposit the deficit court-fee in the lower court within a month from to day. Petition dismissed. .