1. There are two objections taken by the petitioner, the defendant in a suit for the redemption of a possessory mortgage. The first is that the Court-fee paid on the plaint is insufficient and the second that his plea of nonjoinder of persons (other than the plaintiffs) interested in the equity of redemption was wrongly decided by the court below. Neither seems to me to come within the scope of S.115 of the Code.

2. Taking the second first, no doubt 0.34 R.1 requires that all persons having an interest in the right of redemption shall be joined as parties. The plaintiffs claimed that they were solely entitled to the right of redemption and the court below upheld the claim, rejecting the case of the defendant that the daughter and grandchildren of the first plaintiff also had an interest therein. This decision, even if it be wrong, is not one involving any question of jurisdiction.

3. For the first, I read the recent decision of the Supreme Court in 1961 KLT. (SC). 67 as meaning that no revision will lie at the instance of a defendant for the simple reason that the adequacy or otherwise of the Court-fee paid is not a matter in which he is interested unless, as observed in