S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner states that in all these civil revision applications a common question of law does arise and as such on his request, these matters are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts of this case are being taken from Civil Revision Application No. 1396 of 1998 to appreciate the controversy which has been raised in this civil revision application. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 71 of 1997 in the court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Navsari, for permanent injunction seeking relief to the effect that the defendant-respondent may be restrained by appropriate injunction from transferring the disputed flat in the R. K. Flats building situated at Plot Nos. 18 to 23, bearing City Survey No. 1730, Tikka No. 44 in Ward No. 9 of Navsari Nagar Palika, navsari, Tal. Navsari, Dist. Valsad, in any manner whatsoever either by sale, gift, mortgage or lease or any manner whatsoever. ( 3 ) AS usual, on the plaint, the plaintiff-petitioner paid the Court Fees of Rs. 30/ -. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff- petitioner filed an application for grant of temporary injunction and on this application temporary injunction has been granted. The defendant-respondent has approached to the Court fees Inspector in the matter. The Court fees Inspector submitted his report on or about 5. 7. 1997 and he reported that the total court fees on the plaint should have been paid of Rs. 5,500/- and as the plaintiff-petitioner paid Court fees of only Rs. 30/-, the deficit Court Fees of Rs. 5,470/- be recovered from him. Reference has been made to the Court and the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Navsari, under the order dated 20th March, 1998, decided the Reference and it has been held that there is a deficit Court fees of Rs. 5,470/ -. Against this order of the reference Court, these civil revision applications have been filed in this Court. ( 4 ) RELYING on the decision of this Court in the case of Rajkot Gymkhana Club vs. The wealth Tax Officer, reported in 1995 (1) GLH (UJ) 28, and in the case of Jagir Singh vs. Ranbir Singh and Anr. 5,470/ -. Against this order of the reference Court, these civil revision applications have been filed in this Court. ( 4 ) RELYING on the decision of this Court in the case of Rajkot Gymkhana Club vs. The wealth Tax Officer, reported in 1995 (1) GLH (UJ) 28, and in the case of Jagir Singh vs. Ranbir Singh and Anr. , reported in 16 GLT 46, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff- petitioner has filed only a suit for injunction and looking to the nature of agreement between the parties, ad-valorem Court Fees on the cost of this flat was not required to be paid and the Court fees of Rs. 30/- was sufficient Court fees. ( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 6 ) WE talk everyday and it is now a matter of concern of everybody in the country that how delay in disposal of the matters pending in the Court should be overcome. It is also a matter of serious concern and subject of debate, writings and discussions in different seminars organised from time to time throughout the country as to how the arrears of pending matters in the Courts in country are to be reduced. This is a vital issue concerned with the people and needs early solution so that the confidence of litigants in judiciary may not shaken and they may not feel that filing of litigation is nothing but only an onerous remedy, time consuming remedy and costs heavily without any expeditious result being given therein by the Courts. One of the reasons, and I may precisely say, to substantial extent, a good percentage of cases which further add to the mounting arrears of cases pending in the Courts, is that our system and laws sometimes make the procedure or system of dispensation of justice in a way, manner and fashion which results in manifold off suits. These civil revision application are the cases which fall in the category aforesaid. ( 7 ) IN the suit, the defendant-respondent herein felt that the Court fees paid by the plaintiff-petitioner on the plaint is not sufficient or requisite Court Fees to be paid thereon in accordance with the relevant Act. The objection of the defendant- respondent is understandable. These civil revision application are the cases which fall in the category aforesaid. ( 7 ) IN the suit, the defendant-respondent herein felt that the Court fees paid by the plaintiff-petitioner on the plaint is not sufficient or requisite Court Fees to be paid thereon in accordance with the relevant Act. The objection of the defendant- respondent is understandable. Reason of this objection by the defendant-respondent is equally a matter of concern of the parties to the litigation and the Court also. To that extent, no fault can be found with the defendant-respondent. But, this case clearly exhibits how our system or provisions of law are responsible to certain extent for multiplying of the proceedings in a suit and as a result thereof number of unnecessary and avoidable litigations in the Court. The defendant-respondent had liberty to raise these objections in the suit in the written statement. When such an objection has been raised, issue has to be framed by the Trial court in the suit itself and after hearing the parties to the suit, it has to decide what requisite Court fees are to be paid on the plaint by the plaintiff. These proceedings have to be taken and decided in the suit itself but as law provides and it also favours the defendant to unnecessarily indulge the plaintiff in another litigation and without considering the situation prevailing in the country he has adopted that procedure with whatever its motives, objects and purpose, by filing a complaint before the Court Fees Inspector. The court fees Inspector, on its turn, was correct to examine this matter and submit its report to the Court for consideration. There, it was taken to be a separate case, a reference case in the Court fees in the suit itself and it was decided as an independent case. Here I may state that in all there were eight cases. So a point which should have been raised and decided in the suit itself, it has resulted in such litigations in the lower Court, i. e. , (i) objection to the Court fees Inspector and (ii) equal number of reference, referring the matters to the Civil Court. The matter does not end here, dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Court fees reference Court, these civil revision applications have been filed. So here before this Court, these eight revision application have come up. The matter does not end here, dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Court fees reference Court, these civil revision applications have been filed. So here before this Court, these eight revision application have come up. So the matter which could have been decided by framing issue in the suit has given out 8 + 8 + 8 = 24 litigations and in disposal of these matters valuable time of (i) the Court Fees inspector, (ii) the reference Court and (iii) this Court has been consumed in a matter which otherwise could have been decided in the regular course in the suit itself. This has only not multiplied litigations but has consumed valuable time of the Courts which otherwise could have been utilised for the purpose of deciding old matters and further it heavily costs the litigants and delay in disposal of the suits itself. It is a simple matter where ultimately if the Court decides the suit against the plaintiff, he could have been asked to pay the Court fees or to make good deficit of the Court fees within time as granted and if it not done legal consequences as provided in the CPC would have been followed. ( 8 ) A radical change or amendment in the existing relevant Court Fees Act as well as the procedure needs to be made so that this off suits may be avoided and if it is done, it will serve two purposes. It will reduce pendency of cases and consuming of valuable time of the Courts in deciding of these avoidable litigations. I fail to see any justification of making Reference of the matter by the Court Fees Inspector in the suit. Instead of sending that matter to the reference Court it may be reported to the Court where the suit is pending and duplication of proceedings can be avoided. Appropriate issue would have been framed in the suits itself and the matter would have been decided, but in our country it is unfortunate that we are in a habit of sticking to the procedure which we are adopting for the last many years irrespective of result and consequence thereof. In this case, it is not gainsaid that this Court Fees Inspector has taken more than two pages in writing of its note and the learned reference Court has used about nine pages in writing of its order. In this case, it is not gainsaid that this Court Fees Inspector has taken more than two pages in writing of its note and the learned reference Court has used about nine pages in writing of its order. Leaving apart this consumption of the Courts valuable time, this onerous process of dispensation of justice, it has wasted stationery which is very costly now a days. This stationery otherwise could have been utilised for some other good purpose. The students in the country are not getting cheap stationery and one of the reasons of high price of stationery may be of a total non control or non concern on the wastage of stationery. ( 9 ) BE that as it may, the reference Court has not committed any material irregularity in exercising of its jurisdiction in passing of the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the cost of the suit flat Rs. 3. 15 lacs. The artistic drafting of the plaint cannot be made use of in the Courts to pay less Court feesthan what the requisite Court fees have to be paid on the plaint. It is true that in the suit, prayer has been made for injunction i. e. restraining the defendant-respondent from transferring the suit flat, either by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or in any manner whatsoever, but that is nothing but only an attempt to evade the Court fees. I am seeing everyday in this Court that in the matter of disputes of immovable properties of high valuation, simple suits for declaration or injunction are being filed and the Courts are being kept busy by paying nominal Court fees. That is how; litigation is being encouraged. In this case, the real dispute is in respect of the suit flat. The dispute relates to the suit flat and substance of the matter is that the plaintiff is exercising its right, title and interest on the suit flat may not be very specific but by necessary inference a very very substantial prayer has been made to restrain the defendant-respondent from transferring it either by sale, gift, mortgage or lease or in any manner whatsoever. So the effect of this prayer, irrespective of what the technical contention has been raised; is that the subject matter of the dispute is the flat, the value of which is Rs. So the effect of this prayer, irrespective of what the technical contention has been raised; is that the subject matter of the dispute is the flat, the value of which is Rs. 315 lacs, in fact is the soul of the suit and in fact if it is taken away, then what remains in the suit and simple reply is nothing. So when the plaintiff-petitioner is praying far injunction against the defendant-respondent restraining them from transferring the suit flat (valued at Rs. 3. 15 lacs), either by sale, gift, mortgage or lease, the valuation thereof is material and not the relief as has been prayed for. ( 10 ) IN an appropriate case, it is not unkown where the litigants are not in a position to pay heavy Court fees, the State Legal Services Authority Act provides necessary help to such category of persons. In view of these facts, and in the era of providing legal services to the needy persons in the civil suits also a wholesome and radical change in the existing laws, is need of the day. Weaker sections of the society, the persons whose income are not exceeding the limits as prescribed under Sec. 12 bf the State Legal Services Authorities act, are provided with legal services. Permitting of the persons of the category to which the petitioner in the present case falls, of Enjoying the fruits of the suit on payment of nominal Court fees though the valuation of the suit property is Rs. 3:15 lacs, is apparently a fraud played by litigant. But by making legal interpretation here and there of the provisions they are protecting themselves and they are doing it. But apparently this appears to be the only way of evading Court fees. Certainly the Courts should not have come to their rescue, more so when in the case of the category, if falls under Sec. 12 of the State Legal Services Authorities Act, they have been provided legal services. So in case strict interpretation is being given and strict view is taken in such matters, the persons of the category as covered under Sec. 12 of the Act aforesaid are not going to suffer. So in case strict interpretation is being given and strict view is taken in such matters, the persons of the category as covered under Sec. 12 of the Act aforesaid are not going to suffer. Resourceful persons are in fact enjoying all the benefits of this interpretation here and there of the Court Fees Act and in fact by paying nominal Court fees on the plaints, they are approaching the Court for adjudication of their rights in respect of valuable suit properties. ( 11 ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the facts of this case, the view taken by the Court below in the Court fees reference cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. It is not out of context to say howsoever erroneous the finding of the Court subordinate to the High Court on the question of law or fact, if the same does not relate to the exercise of jurisdiction not so vested, the same is not revisable by this Court under Sec. 115 of the CPC. It is not the case nor submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of Court fees to be paid on the plaint. When it has jurisdiction, then even if this view is erroneous on the question of law, it does not call for interference of this Court under Sec. 115 of the CPC. ( 12 ) IN the result, these civil revision applications fail and the same are dismissed. .