JUDGMENT : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant has approached this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the order dated 21.2.2007 passed below Exh. 69 in Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2004. The defendant Bharat Sanchat Nigam Ltd made an application Exh. 69 for referring the matter to the Court Fees Inspector (Inspecting Officer) under Section 12 of Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959. Application Exh.69 was made on 18.12.2006, wherein, the Court passed order on 21.2.2007, which reads as under: "In this matter, issue framed on 23.1.2006 vide Exh. 61 and Issue No. 6 is framed pertaining to this issue. Hence, at this stage, this application is not tenable due to matter is fixed for recording evidence." 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred the present Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Shri Sandeep Shah, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has candidly submitted that deciding this matter i.e. Exh. 69 would certainly not have ended the suit in question but it is the interest revenue of the State by way of Court Fees, which was the main question to be considered and as the issue was framed, the Court was duty bound to refer the matter to the Court Fees Inspector or Inspecting Officer as the Court has declined to do so and thereby, the Court has committed material error in dismissing the application Exh. 69 and prayed that this Revision Application is maintainable and prayers made therein be granted. 5. Shri Malkan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission that on such a issue, Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable. (i) Satischandra Kantilal Shah v. Jagdishchandra Kantilal Shah, reported in 1996 (2) GCD (UJ) 19 (ii) Sri. Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1299 (iii) Parakramsinh Vikramsinh Jadeja & Ors. v. Yogi Corporation & Ors., reported in 2002 (3) GLR p.2040. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the papers. The order made below Exh. Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1299 (iii) Parakramsinh Vikramsinh Jadeja & Ors. v. Yogi Corporation & Ors., reported in 2002 (3) GLR p.2040. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the papers. The order made below Exh. 69 as per the submission of Shri Shah would not have ended the suit and revision is clearly not maintainable in view of unequivocal language employed by the legislation in casting Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision of this Court as well as of the Apex Court would also otherwise govern the issue in question and therefore, this Court need not dwelve upon the other points. Suffice it to say that applicant has not made out any case for interference and accordingly, the revision application is dismissed with no costs. Rule discharged. Revision Dismissed.