A MUHAMAD ELLAIYAS Vs. RAHIMA BEE, LATE A MINOR BY HER HUSBAND AND GUARDIAN KMABDUL LATEEF SAHIB, SINCE DECLARED A MAJOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question I have to decide is, whether a Civil Revision Petition lies against the order of the Subordinate Judge holding that the plaintiff has paid on his plaint the proper Court-fee, the objection to the contrary by the defendant being overruled. The defendant complains in this petition that the order of the Lower Court regarding Court-fee is wrong, and a preliminary objection has been taken that the petition does not lie. In my opinion, the objection is well founded.

(2.) It is hardly necessary to state that I do not base my judgment on the ground that interlocutory orders made in a suit are not liable to be revised by the High Court. As a matter of fact, in the case of various kinds of interlocutory orders the High Court exercises its powers of revision. Where in regard to the Court-fee payable, the decision of the Lower Court is unfavourable to the plaintiff, it has been held that the High Court can in revision interfere with that decision. This is the view I took in Karuppanna Thevar V/s. Angammal and in Venkataramani Aiyar V/s. Narayanaswami Aiyar (1924) 48 M.L.J. 688. Kumaraswami Sastri and Wallace, JJ., adopted the same view in Kulandaivelu Nachiar V/s. Ramaswami Pandia Thalavan (1927) I.L.R. 51 Mad. 664 : 55 M.L.J. 345 where the learned Judges review the authorities on the point. In the present case, the question arises in a different way. The decision is not against the plaintiff, but it does not follow that it is against the defendant. As has been pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Rachappa Subrao V/s. Shidappa Venkatrao (1918) L.R. 46 LA. 24 : 43 Bom. 507 : 36 M.L.J. 437 (P.C.). The Court Fees Act was passed not to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality against his opponent, hut to secure revenue for the benefit of the State (page 518).

(3.) Where an order in regard to Court-fee happens to be in favour of the plaintiff, it does not mean that it is against the defendant, though it may operate "to the detriment of the revenue." (See Section 12 of the Court Fees Act.)