Judgment :- 1. Though order was pronounced in the abovesaid civil revision petition on 23.4.1993, just prior to the summer vacation, before I could sign the order, I felt further elucidation of the point involved was necessary and that it would also be better if notice also goes to the Government Pleader since the matter involves court-fee question. Accordingly, pursuant to my order dated 14.6.1993, after notice had gone to the Government Pleader, the case was argued by both the Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the petitioner, and I pass the following order, which only reiterates the relief given already, with a slight difference in the reasoning. 2. Pursuant to the notice of motion ordered, the respondents have been served privately in the third week of March itself. When service was sought to be made through court, the 1st respondent had refused to receive the notice. No doubt, with reference to the 2nd respondent, second batta was filed and it is not clearly known whether he was been served through court. However, in view of the fact that both the respondents have been served privately as stated above and in view of the fact the 1st respondent had refused to receive the notice and even the 1st respondent has not chosen to enter appearance I hold that the private service is sufficient. Accordingly, I heared the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the Additional Government Pleader. 3. The civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the lower appellate court in A.S.No.67 of 1985 on the question of court-fee. The suit O.S.No.65 of 1981 was for declaration of title and for possession and also for mesne profits. There was no issue regarding the court-fee in the trial court and the suit also was decreed. The respondents preferred the abovesaid first appeal A.S.No.67 of 1985. In that appeal, the lower appellate court has gone into the question of court-fee and has held by the impugned order dated 23.12.1992 that the plaintiff must pay ad valorem court-fee, and for payment of additional court-fee, it granted time till 5.1.1993. 4. For passing the abovesaid order, the lower appellate court relies on Sec. 12(4) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. But, the learned counsef for the petitioner points out that Sec.l2(4) can have no application to the present case. 4. For passing the abovesaid order, the lower appellate court relies on Sec. 12(4) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. But, the learned counsef for the petitioner points out that Sec.l2(4) can have no application to the present case. Sec. 12(4) (a) runs as follows: “Whenever a case comes up before a court of appeal, it shall be lawful for the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties, to consider the correctness of any order passed by the lower court affecting the fee payable on the plaint or in any other proceeding in the lower court and determine the proper fee payable thereon”. According to this provision, the appellate court can only consider the correctness of any order passed by the lower court affecting the fee payable on the plaint. But, there was not even ah issue regarding the court-fee in O.S.No.65 of 1981. The learned counsel also points out that the defendant did not even plead that the court-fee paid was not sufficient. 5. Nevertheless, the lower appellate court, which has registered the appeal in 1985 itself has chosen to hold in 1992 that the court-fee paid is not correct, nearly seven years after the appeal was registered, even though the respondent has not taken any objection to the court-fee paid. There was also no request for a decision regarding the court-fee by the court-fee examiner under Sec.18 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act. While so, the appellate court has no jurisdiction to assess the court-fee payable afresh in the above manner. This Court also has held in Ramachandran v. Anjammal (1963)2 MLJ. 59 after referring to an earlier decision of this Court in Janaki Animal v. Ragavachari Janaki Animal v. Ragavachari Janaki Animal v. Ragavachari (1960)2 MLJ. 527 : 1960L.W. 625thus: “After the registration of the appeal, it is only by means of an objection taken by the respondent, or with regard to a request for a decision by the court-fee examiner under Sec.18, that the court could review the court-fee paid. Otherwise, it has no power suo motu to do so”. 527 : 1960L.W. 625thus: “After the registration of the appeal, it is only by means of an objection taken by the respondent, or with regard to a request for a decision by the court-fee examiner under Sec.18, that the court could review the court-fee paid. Otherwise, it has no power suo motu to do so”. I need not go into the other question whether under Sec. 12(4) of the Court-Fees Act (which has been referred to by the lower appellate court) the expression “order passed by the lower court” found therein would include the order of the trial court in the present case, which was passed under Sec. 12(1) of the abovesaid Act at the time of ordering the plaint to be registered. There is also no necessity to discuss about the decisions cited by the Additional Government Pleader, including Lakshmanan Ayyar v. Palaniappa Chettiar Lakshmanan Ayyar v. Palaniappa Chettiar Lakshmanan Ayyar v. Palaniappa Chettiar 42 L.W. 354, Venkatasubba and Mahalakshmamma v. Venkatanarayanamurthy 53 L.W. 740 However, it is clear that the lawer appellate court has committed the error of jurisdiction as stated above. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the lower appellate court is set aside. No costs. Since the appeal is pending for a long time, I direct the lower appellate court to dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from today.