Judgment : In both these revision petitions, first defendant in O.S.No.157 of 1997 on the file of Subordinate Court, Devakottai, is the revision petitioner. 2. C.R.P.No.1473 of 1999 is filed against the order of lower court dated 3. 1999. Very same petitioner came to this Court on an earlier occasion in C.R.P.No.467 of 1999 wherein, I directed the lower court to decide the question of valuation and court fee as preliminary issue. It was thereafter, the order was passed on 3. 1999. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the court below has violated this Courts order in not passing any order on the preliminary issue and the last portion of the order was also read before me. 4. Since caveat was entered, respondent was also heard. At that time, learned counsel for respondent submitted that after the order dated 3. 1999, lower court passed another order on 13. 1999 wherein the preliminary point was considered in detail and the point was answered. Long before the revision petition was filed, trial court passed order as directed by this Court and therefore nothing survives in this revision petition. 5. In viewof the submission learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he wants to verify whether any order has been passed after 3. 1999. The matter was adjourned. Thereafter, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the lower court has passed another order on 13. 1999 and therefore nothing survives in C.R.P.No.1473 of 1999. 6. In viewof the above submissions, C.R.P.No.1473 of 1999 is dismissed as infructuous. 7. C.R.P.No.1744 of 1999 is also filed by the first defendant in the suit challenging the finding of the court below wherein it held that the court-fee paid is sufficient. According to the appellant, subject matter of the litigation is worth few crores of rupees and the procedure adopted by lower court in dismissing the interlocutory application is illegal. 8. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the revision petition itself is not maintainable. The argument of learned senior counsel was that in regard to direction to pay court fee is only a direction to the litigant against the State, and State alone can be an aggrieved person. Unless the question of jurisdiction also arises, defendant is not entitled to question about the sufficiency of court-fee paid and also challenge the order of lower court. 9. Unless the question of jurisdiction also arises, defendant is not entitled to question about the sufficiency of court-fee paid and also challenge the order of lower court. 9. After hearing both sides, I feel that the contention of learned counsel for respondent is only to be accepted. 10. In Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt.Vimla Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt.Vimla Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt.Vimla , A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1299 their Lordships considered the very same question under Madras Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act (14 of 1955). In paragraphs 2 and 3, their Lordships held thus, “2. The Court-Fees Act was enacted to collect revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct the trial of an action. By recognising that the defendant was entitled to contest the valuation of the properties in dispute as if it were a matter in issue between him and the plaintiff and by entertaining petitions preferred by the defendant to the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction against the order adjudging court-fee payable on the plaint, all progress in the suit for the trial of the dispute on the merits has been effectively frustrated for nearly five years. We fail to appreciate what grievance the defendant can make by seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate court-fee on his plaint. Whether proper court-fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State. How by an order relating to the adequacy of the court-fee paid by the plaintiff, the defendant may feel aggrieved, it is difficult to appreciate. Again the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by Clauses (a) to (c) thereof and may be invoked on the ground of refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Subordinate Court or assumption of jurisdiction which the court does not possess or on the ground that the court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The defendant who may believe and even honestly that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint. The defendant who may believe and even honestly that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint. But counsel for the defendant says that by Act 14 of 1955 enacted by the Madras Legislature which applied to the suit in question, the defendant has been invested with a right not only to contest in the trial court the issue whether adequate court-fee has been paid by the plaintiff, but also to move the High Court in revision if an order contrary to his submission is passed by the court. Reliance in support of that contention is placed upon Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.12. That sub-section in so far as it is material, provides: “Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim plead that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. If the court decides that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. The court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the courts decision and the deficit fee shall be paid…..” 3. But this section only enables the defendant to raise a contention as to the proper court-fee payable on a plaint and to assist the court in arriving at a just decision on that question. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of the Madras Court-Fees Act or any other statute which enables the defendant to move the High Court in revision against the decision of the court of first instance on the matter of court-fee payable in a plaint. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of the Madras Court-Fees Act or any other statute which enables the defendant to move the High Court in revision against the decision of the court of first instance on the matter of court-fee payable in a plaint. The Act, it is true by Sec.19 provides that for the purpose of deciding whether the subject-matter of the suit or other proceeding has been properly valued or whether the fee paid is sufficient, the court may hold such enquiry as it considers proper and issue a commission to any other person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and report thereon. The anxiety of the Legislature to collect court-fee due from the litigant is manifest from the detailed provisions made in Chapter III of the Act, but those provisions do not arm the defendant with a weapon of technicality to obstruct the progress of the suit by approaching the High Court in revision against an order determining the court-fee payable. In our view, the High Court grievously erred in entertaining revision applications on questions of court-fee at the instance of the defendant. When no question of jurisdiction was involved. ‘ [Italics supplied] 11. Our High Court also had an occasion to consider a similar question and the same is reported in Murthiraju v. Subbaraju , (1944)1 MLJ. 228: A.I.R. 1944 Mad. 315 (F.B.). In that case, the Full Bench held thus: “A revision petition lies when a court subordinate to the High Court has held that the plaintiff has inadequately stamped his plaint but a petition for revision does not lie when a defendant has unsuccessfully challenged the adequacy of the stamp affixed by the plaintiff, unless a further question of jurisdiction is involved.” 12. Justice Rajamannar also held a similar view in the decision reported in Muthu Naicken v. Mariappa , (1952)2 MLJ. 172 : A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 754 thus, “It has been the well established practice of the Madras High Court to interfere with an order relating to court-fee and jurisdiction even though the decision on these questions of the lower court were in favour of the plaintiff. It is only when the question related entirely to court-fee and did not involve any question of jurisdiction that the court does not interfere at the instance of the defendant.“ 13. It is only when the question related entirely to court-fee and did not involve any question of jurisdiction that the court does not interfere at the instance of the defendant.“ 13. Reliance was also placed by learned counsel for respondent in the decision reported in S.R.Somasundaram v. S.K.Kumarasamy and others S.R.Somasundaram v. S.K.Kumarasamy and others S.R.Somasundaram v. S.K.Kumarasamy and others , (1995)2 L.W. 866 In that case, their Lordships were considering the correctness of the decision of Justice Srinivasan (as he then was) reported in S.K.Kumarasami v. S.R.Somasundaram and two others S.K.Kumarasami v. S.R.Somasundaram and two others S.K.Kumarasami v. S.R.Somasundaram and two others , (1994) 2 L.W. 646 . In that case Justice Srinivasan (as he then was) considered this question in para. 16 of the judgment, which read thus: ”16. The Subordinate Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction in rendering findings on the merits of the main case while dealing with the issue relating to the valuation of the plaint and court-fee payable preliminarily. The orders passed by the Subordinate Judge fall well within the four corners of Sec.115, Code of Civil Procedure. There is no merit in the objection taken by learned counsel for the respondents that the revisions are not maintainable on the footing that a defendant in a suit has no right to challenge a decision of the Subordinate Court on the question of court-fee payable in the suit. Reliance is placed by the respondents on the following cases: A.Muhammad Ellaiyas v. Rahima Bee A.Muhammad Ellaiyas v. Rahima Bee A.Muhammad Ellaiyas v. Rahima Bee , 56 MLJ. 302: 29 L.W. 42, Rathnavarmaraja No doubt, in those cases it has been held that no revision will lie against the decision on the adequacy of court-fee at the instance of the defendant unless the question of court-fee involves also the jurisdiction of the court. But none of the rulings will help the respondents in the present, case inasmuch as the Subordinate Judge has travelled very much beyond his jurisdiction and almost decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff, even at this stage. Hence, the revisions cannot be thrown out as falling outside the scope of Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But none of the rulings will help the respondents in the present, case inasmuch as the Subordinate Judge has travelled very much beyond his jurisdiction and almost decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff, even at this stage. Hence, the revisions cannot be thrown out as falling outside the scope of Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the findings rendered by the Subordinate Judge are eschewed, nothing remains in his orders to show that he has applied his mind to the question of proper court-fee payable on the plaint in accordance with the settled principles of law. “ When the matter was taken before the Honourable Supreme Court, in para 3 of the judgment reported in S.R.Somasundaram v. S.K.Kumaraswamy S.R.Somasundaram v. S.K.Kumaraswamy S.R.Somasundaram v. S.K.Kumaraswamy , (1995)2 L.W. 866 their Lordships said thus: ”We are of the opinion in the facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of the learned trial judge on the question of court-fee, or for that matter, amendment of the plaint.“ Honourable Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Hence, the observations relied on by the learned counsel for respondent in the decision reported in S.K.Kumarasami v. S.R.Somasundaram and two others S.K.Kumarasami v. S.R.Somasundaram and two others S.K.Kumarasami v. S.R.Somasundaram and two others , (1994)2 L.W. 646 cannot be accepted as laying down correct law. 14. In view of the settled legal principles the preliminary objection raised by respondent is to be accepted. 15. Lower court has found that the court-fee paid is proper and the suit has also been properly valued. The question of jurisdiction does not arise in this case since admittedly suit is filed before Subordinate Judges Court, which is a court of unlimited jurisdiction. If the state is not aggrieved by the order, defendant has nothing to do with the payment of court-fee and cannot be said as an aggrieved person so as to file revision petition before this Court. 16. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the very averments in the plaint are sufficient to hold that the court-fee paid is not correct and plaintiff should be directed to pay ad valorm court-fee under Sec.37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act. If the revision itself is not maintainable at the instance of defendant that question also cannot be considered by this Court. 17. If the revision itself is not maintainable at the instance of defendant that question also cannot be considered by this Court. 17. Learned counsel submitted that the finding in the impugned order is likely to prejudice this Court when the case is decided on merits. The said apprehension is also without any basis. Whether proper court-fee has been paid or not is based only on the allegations of the plaint. For that purpose, court need not go into the contention of defendant or merits of the claim. Any order regarding payment of court-fee has nothing to do with the merits of the claim. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent also brought to my notice a recent decision of this Court in C.R.P.No.1318 of 1998 rendered by my brother Justice S.M.Abdul Wahab, wherein also learned Judge has taken a similar view. 19. In the result, I hold that the revision petitions are not maintainable and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.7989 and 9369 of 1999 are also dismissed.