Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition, filed under Sec.115 C.P.C against the order of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai dated 13.01.2003 in Check Slip No.561/XXVI/5 in O.S.No.45 of 2000, as stated therein.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai dated 13.01.2003 in Check Slip No.561/XXVI/5 in O.S.No.45 of 2000 ordering for an Enquiry under Sec.19 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. 2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the Petition could briefly be stated thus: - The Suit in O.S.No.45 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif, Pattukkottai relates to the property in Old S.No.187 in New Survey No.47/2 to an extent of 60 Kuzhis, measuring 2733 square metres or 29,424 square feet. Case of the Plaintiffs is that the Suit Property was notified and taken over by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Tamil Nadu Estate Abolition Act XXVI of 1948. For a portion of the Property, Burmah Shell Company has become the Successor in interest. Having purchased the property from M/s.Asiatic Petroleum Company, the Suit Property was sold to the First Plaintiff while he was a minor by the said Burmah Shell Company Limited by the Sale Deed dated 27.02.1970. After the village was taken over by the Government, the First Plaintiff applied for Patta; but when he came to know that the Officer has been conducting the Enquiry only under Sec.15 of the Tamil Nadu Estate Abolition Act, the First Plaintiff withdrew the Application since the Suit land happened to be ryotwari land and the application filed under Sec.11 of the Act and not under Sec.15 of the Act XXVI of 1948. 3. The Settlement Department had mistakenly did not issue rough patta to the First Plaintiff; the Defendant came to know about the Enquiry and claimed Patta. Without any enquiry, Ground Rent Patta was granted to the Defendant under Sec.11 of the Act. The Grant of Patta in the name of the Defendant would not in any way affect the right of the Plaintiffs. In a Family Deed dated 05.01.1983, the First Plaintiff has allotted the property to his Son viz., the Second Plaintiff. Without any enquiry, Ground Rent Patta was granted to the Defendant under Sec.11 of the Act. The Grant of Patta in the name of the Defendant would not in any way affect the right of the Plaintiffs. In a Family Deed dated 05.01.1983, the First Plaintiff has allotted the property to his Son viz., the Second Plaintiff. The Second Plaintiff claims Right and Title to the Suit Property through the First Plaintiffs Title and hence, both the Plaintiffs have filed the Suit in O.S.No.45 of 2000 for (i) declaring that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the occupancy right in the Suit land without any liability to pay Melvaram or Rent to the Defendant Devesthanam. (ii) Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from in any way enforcing the provisions of H.R. & C.E Act and thereby interfering with the peaceful possession of the Suit Lands with the Plaintiff. 4. The Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the Suit Property only as a Tenant under the Defendant. Inspite of various claims by the First Plaintiff in various forums, the First Plaintiff had been paying the stipulated rent to the Defendant Devasthanam till 1997 without any objection. Hence it is futile to contend that the First Plaintiff has prescribed Title by Adverse Possession. Having been paying the stipulated rent to the Defendants, admitting the First Plaintiff as the Tenant under the Defendant, the Plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any right to the Suit Property. The Plaintiffs have been paying only rent to the Defendant / Landlord under the Transfer of Property Act. The Suit land is ryotwari land and there is no occupancy right after the introduction of ryotwari Settlement. The Plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration and injunction against the Defendant Devasthanam and the Suit is not maintainable. 5. During the pendency of the Suit, Check Slip has been issued on the ground of under valuation of the Suit. In the Check Slip, it has been stated that as per the Family Agreement, Document No.9 dated 05.01.1983, the Suit property has been valued at Rs.1,21,500/- (i.e. Market value of Rs.2025/- per cent even in the year 1983) and therefore, the market value adopted in the Suit is very low unjustifiable and unreasonable. In the Check Slip, it has been stated that as per the Family Agreement, Document No.9 dated 05.01.1983, the Suit property has been valued at Rs.1,21,500/- (i.e. Market value of Rs.2025/- per cent even in the year 1983) and therefore, the market value adopted in the Suit is very low unjustifiable and unreasonable. In the Check Slip it has been stated, "....to ascertain the market value of the suit property as on the date of presentation of Plaint under Sec.7(1) of the Court Fees Act. It has also been in the decision reported in 1988 II M.L.J. 437 that the Plaintiff is not free to make his own estimation of the value of relief. He has to furnish to the Court with relevant evidence and materials to make his estimation. Since this Check Slip is issued under Sec.18 of Court Fees Act, it is just and necessary to ascertain the market value of the Suit Property for jurisdiction and computation of Court Fees. The procedure laid down under Sec.19 of Court Fees Act may be resorted to and the Plaintiffs may be directed to pay the deficit court fee on proper amendment to the Plaint. Since the market value exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, the plaint may be returned to the Plaintiff for presenting the same before proper forum with proper court Fees....." 6. To the Check Slip issued, the Plaintiffs have been called upon to file their objections regarding the Check Slip and the payment of deficit Court Fee in the Plaint. The Plaintiffs have filed their objection to the Check Slip stating that the Suit land being ryotwari land, the Suit has been properly valued and as per Sec.7(2)(a) of the Court Fees Act, where the land is ryotwari land, the market value is thirty times the survey assessment on the land and therefore, for computing the market value, if is enough if thirty times kist is adopted. It has been further stated that the Settlement Register of Nadiambalpuram shows that the land is agricultural land and the Ryotwari Assessment alone has been fixed and no ground rent has been fixed and hence, the Court fee already paid in the Plaint at the rate of Rs.500/- per cent is highly excessive and the valuation has been correctly adopted. It has been further stated that the Settlement Register of Nadiambalpuram shows that the land is agricultural land and the Ryotwari Assessment alone has been fixed and no ground rent has been fixed and hence, the Court fee already paid in the Plaint at the rate of Rs.500/- per cent is highly excessive and the valuation has been correctly adopted. In their objection, the Plaintiffs have further stated that "...if an enquiry is ordered under Sec.19 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act, the Plaintiff is ready to produce the records to show that it is assessed to ryotwari lands...." Thus, the Plaintiffs have stated that the Court Fee already paid at Rs.30,000/- is correct and there is no need for payment of any further Court Fee and the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsif Court is not taken away. On such objection and upon hearing the parties on 13.01.2003, learned District Munsif, Pattukkottai has ordered an Enquiry under Sec.19 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and ordered that the Plaintiff should produce all the necessary documents and steps to prove the classification and the present value of the Suit Property. 7. Aggrieved against the order of Enquiry Under Sec.19 of Court Fees Act, the Plaintiffs have preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 8. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs has contended that under Sec.7(1) of the Court Fees Act, the market value is to be computed only by taking thirty times the kist. It is further submitted that the Court fee already paid valuing the property at Rs.500/- per cent (total value at Rs.30,000/-) and the Court Fee paid at Rs.2250/- is correct and there is no need for any further payment of Court Fee. It is further submitted that the District Munsif has erred in not properly appreciating the objections raised and ordering for an enquiry under Sec.19 of the Court Fees Act. 9. Contending that under Sec.151 C.P.C, no revision would lie and that there is no case decided, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that there is no illegality in ordering enquiry under Sec.19 of Court Fees Act. Learned counsel for the Respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the answers filed by the Plaintiff for the Check Slip stating that they are willing to produce the documents if enquiry under Sec.19 of the Court Fees Act is ordered. Learned counsel for the Respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the answers filed by the Plaintiff for the Check Slip stating that they are willing to produce the documents if enquiry under Sec.19 of the Court Fees Act is ordered. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs are estopped from challenging the order of Enquiry. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the averments in Paragraph 6 of the Plaint and submitted that even the Plaintiffs have averred that with regard to the Suit Property only Ground Rent Patta was granted and the Plaintiffs now cannot turn round and contend that the Suit Property is only Ryotwari land for which market value is to be calculated taking 30 times Kist. 10. Whether the Revision Petition preferred against the issuance of the order directing enquiry under Sec.19 of the Court Fees Act is maintainable and whether the order directing Enquiry suffers from infirmity warranting interference are the points that arise for consideration in this Revision Petition. 11. For the issuance of the Check Slip, the Plaintiffs have filed their answers / objection. In the answer to the Check Slip, the Plaintiffs have taken the stand justifying the payment of Court Fee valuing the Market Value at Rs.30,000/- (Rs.500/- per cent). In the objection to the Check Slip, the Plaintiffs have stated "...if an enquiry is ordered under Sec.19 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act, the Plaintiff is ready to produce the records to show that it is assessed as ryotwari lands...." But, when the Court has ordered Enquiry under Sec.19 of Court Fees Act, the Plaintiffs have rushed to this Court without even waiting for the Enquiry and passing of the Order. The Plaintiffs have resorted invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Court, even against their own statement requesting for an Enquiry under Sec.19 of the Court Fees Act. 12. The Plaintiffs have resorted invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Court, even against their own statement requesting for an Enquiry under Sec.19 of the Court Fees Act. 12. Revisional jurisdiction under Sec.115 C.P.C cannot be invoked unless the following conditions exist: (i) there must be a case decided by a Court; (ii) the court deciding the case must be subordinate to the High Court; (iii) no appeal must lie (to the High Court) against the decision; and (iv) in deciding the case, the subordinate Court must appear to have (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law; or (c) acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The High Court has no power to interfere in revision except in the above instances. 13. A case may be said to be decided only if the Court adjudicates for the purpose of the Suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy. The Impugned Order has only directed Enquiry under Sec.19 of the Court Fees Act. It does not amount to "case decided". Only if the trial court has has passed any order regarding the payment of court fee, there would have been a case decided. 14. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff / Revision Petitioner has submitted that the suit property in S.No.47/2 of Nadiambalpuram is only ryotwari land. As per Sec.7 (2) of the Court Fees Act, where the land is ryotwari land, the market value of the land would be thirty times the survey assessment on the land. Therefore, it is submitted that the suit property has been valued at Rs.500/- per cent and the total value has been valued at Rs.30,000/- and the market value stated in the Plaint is correct and in fact excessive and that there is no need to order for an enquiry to determine the payment of further court fee. This contention has no merits. In paragraph 6 of the Plaint, the Plaintiffs have averred that the Settlement Department has conducted Enquiry and objections were heard and Ground Rent Patta was granted under Sec.11 of the Act. Thus, even according to the Plaintiffs, only the Ground Rent Patta was granted showing that the suit property is only a site. 15. In paragraph 3 of the Plaint, the Plaintiffs have elaborated the previous Title. Thus, even according to the Plaintiffs, only the Ground Rent Patta was granted showing that the suit property is only a site. 15. In paragraph 3 of the Plaint, the Plaintiffs have elaborated the previous Title. According to them, one portion has been sold to Burmah Shell Company and another portion has been sold to Best and Company. In paragraph 3, the Plaintiffs have further traced as to how from M/s.Asiatic Petroleum Company, Burmah Sheel Company has become the owner. The suit property is said to have been sold by sale deed dated 27.02.1970 by Burmah Shell Limited. The averments in Paragraph 3 that the property has been purchased by various companies and later sold to the Plaintiff prima facie indicate that the Suit Property is a site assessable only as Ground Rent and not an Agricultural Land assessed to the payment of kist. If the suit property had been the Agricultural land assessed to Survey Assessment, the Plaintiffs could have well produced the documents in the Enquiry ordered under Sec.19 of the Court Fees Act. The Plaintiffs are not right in rushing to this Court and urging that the suit property is only classified as Agricultural land and that it has been assessed to Survey Assessment and that the market value is to be calculated taking 30 times survey assessment as per Sec.7 (2) of the Court Fees Act. 16. The Civil Revision Petition preferred against the order directing Enquiry under Sec.19 of the Court Fees is not at all maintainable. No case has been decided to attract the revisional jurisdiction under Sec.115 C.P.C. This revision petition is devoid of merits and is bound to fail. The Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs have hurriedly rushed to this Court invoking the revisional jurisdiction, the Respondent / Defendant has been subjected to much hardship by delaying the Trial and the Plaintiff not paying the rent as being the Tenant. Under those circumstances, it is just and necessary to direct the Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs to pay costs to the Defendant Devasthanam. 17. In the result, it is held that this Civil Revision Petition preferred against the order of District Munsif, Pattukkottai dated 13.01.2003 in Check Slip No.561/XXVI/5 in O.S.No.45 of 2000 directing Enquiry under Sec.19 of the Court Fees Act is not maintainable and this Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- payable to the Respondent / Defendant. 17. In the result, it is held that this Civil Revision Petition preferred against the order of District Munsif, Pattukkottai dated 13.01.2003 in Check Slip No.561/XXVI/5 in O.S.No.45 of 2000 directing Enquiry under Sec.19 of the Court Fees Act is not maintainable and this Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- payable to the Respondent / Defendant. The learned District Munsif, Pattukkottai is directed to hold the Enquiry under Sec.19 of Court Fees Act (as already ordered) to ascertain the classification and Market value of the Suit Property and the Court fee payable thereon. It is further directed that the Trial Court may not be influenced by the views expressed in this Order.