S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) PERUSED the civil revision application and the order of the Taxing officer dated 26. 4. 1990. ( 2 ) AS there was a dispute between the office of this Court and the appellant- petitioner on the question of the Court fees to be affixed on the memo of first appeal the matter was referred to the Taxing Officer of this Court. The Taxing Officer under the order impugned in this civil revision application held that the act of appellant-petitioner to pay ad valorem Court fee on the consolidated claim of Rs, 1,06,1187- by affixing the court fee stamps of Rs. 3,405/- on the memo of the appeal is not proper. The appellant-petitioner was held liable to pay ad valorem Court fees on the claims of Rs. 77,272/- and Rs. 48,846. 67 separately and accordingly it has to affix Court fees stamps of rs. 2,980/- and Rs. 2,500/- total of Rs. 5,480/- on memo of the appeal. It was ordered to affix the deficit Court fees stamps of Rs. 2,075/- on the memo of appeal within 15 days of this order. ( 3 ) HENCE this revision application against this order under Sec. 115 of the Code of civil Procedure in mis Court. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No. 4036/77 in the City Civil Court at ahmedabad for the recovery of Rs. 1,01,271. 15 with interest @12% p. a. from the date of the filing of suit till the realization. The defendant petitioner herein contested the suit and filed its written statement. It is not only contested claim raised by the plaintiff respondent but also filed a counter claim of Rs. 1,02,149. 86. The learned Trial Court under its impugned judgment and decree partly allowed the claim of the plaintiff-respondent and the counter claim of the defendant-appellant-petitioner which give rise to filing of the First Appeal No. 773/84 by it in this Court. This appeal is filed in the year 1984. The objection of the deficit of the Court fees paid on the memo of appeal there has been raised by the Registry. It was referred to the Tax Officer. The Tax Officer has taken more than 6 years to decide the same. This appeal is filed in the year 1984. The objection of the deficit of the Court fees paid on the memo of appeal there has been raised by the Registry. It was referred to the Tax Officer. The Tax Officer has taken more than 6 years to decide the same. That order has been challenged by the defendant appellant petitioner in this civil revision application and by this Court more than 8 years have been taken to decide the same. Irrespective of the fact whether Court allows or dismiss this civil revision application, the first appeal then will be placed for admission and where it is admitted by the Court, it will take another 10 to 15 years to come to the stage of final hearing. I fail to see this approach or more particularly the procedural approach in the Courts in 21st century. Our procedural laws are antique and also by passing of time becomes obsolete. Though our science has been developed to that extent where we are talking to send the man to the Mars but still we are having our procedural law in the Civil Procedure Code which was enacted in seventeens. Similarly, court Fees Acts etc. needs to be-suitably amended. Be that as it may. It is understandable that the question of the payment of the Court fees on the memo of appeal be taken for scrutiny thereof by the Registry. The registry of this Court may be justified to raise this objection and it is also understandable that in appropriate cases Tax Officer may have examined the matter. But I fail to see any justification of filing of revision application in such matters. This objection can be raised in the appeal itself, and with this Court fee objection the appeal be circulated and the Court will decide the same in the appeal rather than in a separate revision application to be filed. It is nothing but only a multiplicity of proceedings and results thereof is of delay in disposal of the main matter. More than 14 years have already been passed and the first appeal has not come to the stage of admission. It is nothing but only a multiplicity of proceedings and results thereof is of delay in disposal of the main matter. More than 14 years have already been passed and the first appeal has not come to the stage of admission. It is lying in the defect in the registry of this Court what useful and fruitful purpose will be served in adopting or precisely following the procedure of filing of the revision application and entertaining thereof by this Court in the matter of Court fee. It is very difficult to appreciate and more difficult to give any explanation. Only one purpose is served that an appeal of the year 1984 is lying under defect in the registry for all these 14 years. The appeal has been filed and if the registry of this Court and the Tax Officer are also of the opinion that on the memo thereof a requisite Court fee has not been made, subject to that objection, the appeal may be registered and it may be circulated. The Court while deciding the appeal adjudicate on this question and will decide finally and where it finds that the Court fees paid is deficit it will pass an order and direct thereunder the appellant to make good of the Court fees. It is a judicial matter and it has to be adjudicated and finally decided in the appeal itself by the Court. This duplication of the process is not only results in delay in disposal of the main matters but unnecessarily burdening work of the Court, which is already heavily burdened. Instead of one litigation or a case it is resulted in two cases that is first appeal and there is a civil revision application and that too in the matter of what the requisite Court fees to be paid on the memo of appeal. The Court cannot be ignorant of the fact that this revision has to be decided by this Court itself. So then why these two separate proceedings. This question can be gone into and decided by the Court in First Appeal itself. That course i. e. , filing of the revision will delay the hearing of the appeal and secondly it will unnecessary increase the work of the registry as well as that of the Court. So then why these two separate proceedings. This question can be gone into and decided by the Court in First Appeal itself. That course i. e. , filing of the revision will delay the hearing of the appeal and secondly it will unnecessary increase the work of the registry as well as that of the Court. It will also artificially increase the number of pending matters in this Court To ascertain the correct amount of Court fees to be paid by the appellant on the memo of appeal the procedure adopted for this purpose and object by this Court is highly unjustified and undesirable. ( 5 ) TO day I had occasion to deal with another civil revision application in the matter of Court fees. In that revision application, the facts were that in the suit, the defendant raised an objection that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit property and accordingly not paid the requisite Court fees on the plaint. On this objection, the Trial court framed on issue and that has been decided against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court before this Court. In that appeal this objection has been raised and the same has been sent for examination to the Tax Officer and he has given a decision that Court fees paid on the memo of appeal is deficit. Against that order, the revision application is filed by the appellant. If we go by these facts of that case aforesaid, it is really alarming to the Court. The Tax Officer by deciding the question of what is requisite Court fees payable on memo appeal has affirmed the view of the Trial Court meaning thereby that in a suit this issue has been rightly decided though the plaintiff appellant is challenging that decision of Trial Court in the first appeal. In such cases, the Court fees paid on the memo of appeal should have been accepted and any such objection needs not be raised because that point is already in issue in the appeal itself. In such cases, the Court fees paid on the memo of appeal should have been accepted and any such objection needs not be raised because that point is already in issue in the appeal itself. ( 6 ) IN the result this civil revision application is disposed of in the term that the question of validity, propriety and correctness of the decision of the Tax Officer on the question of the amount of the Court fees to be paid on the memo of the First Appeal No. 773/84 will be decided by this Court while hearing the main matter i. e. , First Appeal. ( 7 ) IT is a matter which needs to be brought to the notice of all concerned persons so that this decision may be given effect to in its form, object and purpose. ( 8 ) IN a case where registry finds that on the memo of appeal proper and full Court fee has not been paid this matter be reported in its report. Where the advocate or litigant is objected to this objection, the registry in a case where it considers necessary the matter may be sent to the Tax Officer for examination thereof. The Tax Officer may examine the matter with 15 days and sent the matter to registry. If Tax Officer is agreed with the advocate or litigant matter ends. In case where he agrees with registry and finds deficit of court fee paid on the memo of appeal, the appeal be circulated for admission with office objection and Tax Officer report where it is there, and the Court will decide this matter in appeal at admission and pass the appropriate order regarding Court fee. ( 9 ) COPY of this order may also be sent to Gujarat High Court Advocate Association for information of its members so that in such matters they may not file the revision application. .