JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 3.11.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 230 of 2011 and the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 1/Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Civil Revision No. 13 of 2015. 2. From the perusal of the record, it comes out that Gur Bachan Singh (opposite party No. 3) has preferred a suit for mandatory injunction (Regular Suit No. 230 of 2011) against Smt. Munni Devi, Bhola Kashyap and Raj Kumar Kashyap alias Raju (petitioner herein) in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants commanding them, their family members, agents, attorneys etc. to vacate and handover the possession to the plaintiff of the outhouse on the eastern side of House No. 279/156, Pan Dariba, P.S. Nakahindola, Lucknow. 3. As the defendants to the suit raised a plea regarding undervalue of the suit, as such, the trial Court framed Issue Nos. 4 and 5 regarding valuation and the Court fee on the relief sought by opposite party No. 3 (plaintiff). The trial Court after considering the submissions made by the parties decided the issue regarding valuation and Court fee against the petitioner on the ground that no evidence has been produced by the petitioner, opposite party No. 4 and opposite party No. 5 with regard to undervalue and deficiency in payment of the Court fee. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.2014, the petitioner had preferred a Civil Revision under Section 115 before the District Judge, Lucknow, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 13/15. The Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 1/Additional District Judge, Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 27.10.2016 dismissed the revision by a detailed judgment. The Revisional Court observed that maximum Court fee, if has been paid and the issue which have been decided by the trial Court does not adversely affected the interest of the petitioner/revisionist. The issue with regard to payment of Court fee is between the Court, State and the plaintiff. It would not have any adverse effect to the rights of the defendant/petitioner and it would also not change the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. 5. The issue with regard to payment of Court fee is between the Court, State and the plaintiff. It would not have any adverse effect to the rights of the defendant/petitioner and it would also not change the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 3.11.2014 passed by the trial Court and the judgment and order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on the ground that the trial Court as well as revisional Court has passed the impugned orders without looking into the fact that whether Court fee has been paid as required under Section 7(vi-b) of the Suit Valuation and Court Fees Act on the relief regarding the demolition of the constructions which have been carried out by the petitioner and the opposite parties No. 4 and 5. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that both the Courts below failed to appreciate that in the plaint of regular suit, the opposite party No. 3 himself pleaded that the petitioner, opposite party No. 4 and opposite party No. 5 have raised two rooms, latrine, bathroom, kitchen unauthorizedly and the opposite party No. 3 without paying the Court fee on the said construction sought the relief of possession through mandatory injunction. 7. On the strength of the decision rendered in Arun Kumar Tiwari v. Smt. Deepa Sharma and others; 2006(2) ADJ 542 (DB), learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that opposite party No. 3 (plaintiff) is not entitled for any relief, as he has failed to pay proper Court fee in respect of the reliefs claimed by him. 8. Section 12 of the Court Fee Act, 1870 deals with the decision of question as to valuation and it provides that such an issue shall be decided by the Court in which the plaint is filed and such decision shall be final between the parties to the suit. Thus, it is evident from the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 1870 that the decision taken by the Court on such an issue shall be final between the parties but in case the superior Court while exercising the appellate or revisional jurisdiction comes to the conclusion that the issue has wrongly been decided to the detriment of the revenue. It can direct the party to make the deficiency good for the reasons that the object of the Act is not to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality but to secure the revenue. 9. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, however, in Gupta & Co. v. Kripa Ram Brothers, AIR 1934 All 620, held that a decision in the trial of a suit as to the amount of Court-fee is not an independent proceeding and, therefore, not open to revision or challenge by the defendants. 10. In G. Krishnamurthy v. Sarangapant, the Madras High Court held that “primarily the issue regarding Court-fee is essentially a matter in between the Court and the suitor and the finding rendered by the Court cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the defendant.?” 11. Thus, in view of the above, the legal position can be summarized that the defendant has a right to raise all objections on the valuation and deficiency of the Court-fees. The matter is to be adjudicated upon and decided by the Court under Section 12 of the Act, 1870 and the decision so taken by the trial Court shall be final. The defendant cannot raise the grievance against the said decision unless the valuation suggested by him affects the jurisdiction of the Court. 12. Moreover, the law is settled that the matter relating to valuation of the proceedings, and determination of Court fee is a matter between the plaintiffs and the Court, and once the issue has been adjudicated by the competent Court, the defendant-petitioner have no locus to challenge such determination. The Apex Court in the case of Sri Ratnavaramaraja v. Smt. Vimal, AIR 1961 SC 1299 , had held that the defendant cannot be permitted to agitate such determination made by the Civil Court, with regard to payment of Court fee, by approaching higher forum. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the judgment passed by the revisional Court is hereby affirmed.