In suits for mesna profits or for immoveable property and mesne profits, or for an account, if the profits or amount decreed are or is in excess of the profits claimed or the amount at which the plaintiff valued the relief sought, the decree shall not be executed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits or amount so decreed shall have been paid to the proper officer.
Where the amount of mesne profits is left to be ascertained in the course of the execution of the decree, if the profits so ascertained exceed the profits claimed, the further execution of the decree shall be stayed until the difference between the fee
1. See now the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894).
2. Clause (Hi) rep. by Act 12 of 1891, sec. 2 and Sch. I THE COURT-FEES ACT,1870 12 actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits so ascertained is paid. If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the Court shall fix, the suit shall be dismissed.
COMMENTS
(i) It has been held that a separate application to raise objection with regard to undervaluation of deficiency in court-fee is not required and such objection can be contemplated from the written statement; Panna Lal v .. Mohan Lal, AIR 1985 Raj 178.
(ii) It has been held that if the amount of mesne profits to be awarded after ascertaining the same exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court the suit must be transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction; Siya Saran Singh v. Jamuna Devi, AIR 1987 Pat 1.
(iii) It has been held that objection in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity; Smt. Baba Dai v. Muneshwar Jha, AIR 1985 Pat 67.
(iv) It has been held that there is no provision either in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or in the Court-fees Act, 1870 for decreeing any amount of compensation paid or received while the suit is pending adjudication or for the payment of court-fees after decree has been passed; Usha Sales Ltd. v. Smt. Aruna Gupta, AIR 1988 (NOC) 74 Del.