(Prayer: Petition (disposed of on 22-8-1941) under S. 115 of Act V of 1908 and S. 224 of the Government of India Act praying the High Court to revise the order of the Court of the District Munsif of Tiruvadi dated 5-3-1940 and made in I.A. No. 18 of 1940 in O.S. No. 39 of 1939.)

A preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies against the order directing the plaintiffs to give the market value of the land and pay court-fees thereon. The plaintiffs paid court-fees on the basis of the net profits from the land for the previous year claiming to come within S. 7, Cl. (iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act and the proviso to the Madras Act which brings in the method of court-fee calculation provided in S. 7 Cl. (v). Kumaraswami Sastri and Wallace, JJ. in Rani Kulandaivelu Nachiar v. Indran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavan (51 Mad. 664 [LQ/MadHC/1927/473] = 27 L.W. 286) overruled the preliminary objection and held on a consideration of the authorities that such an order can be the subject of interference under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. My attention has been drawn to the decision by Sir Sydney Burn, J. in K. Manaithunainatha Desikar v. Gopala Chettiar (1939 (1) M.L.J. 317 = 49 L.W. 270) to the contrary where Rani Kolandaivelu Nachiar v. Indran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavan (51 Mad. 664 [LQ/MadHC/1927/473] = 27 L.W. 286) was considered. Apart from the fact that the Bench decision is binding on me, it must also be pointed out that the facts in K. Manaithunainatha Desikar v. Gopala Chettiar (1939 (1) M.L.J. 317 = 49 L.W. 270) could not really be distinguished from those in Rani Kulandaivelu Nachiar v. Indran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavan (51 Mad. 664 [LQ/MadHC/1927/473] = 27 L.W. 286) on the ground mentioned, namely, the Judge refusing to proceed with the suit until the proper court-fee is paid. Wherever a Court calls upon a plaintiff to pay additional court-fee and adjourns the suit to a later date for that purpose, it does refuse to proceed with the suit until the proper sum is put into Court. It is only in this sense that the Bench in Rani Kulandaivelu Nachiar v. Indran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavan (51 Mad. 664 [LQ/MadHC/1927/473] = 27 L.W. 286) appear to have thought that there was a refusal. It does not look as though there was a specific order refusing to proceed with the suit. As a matter of fact, no such order is contemplated by the Code. If the order directing payment of additional court-fee is not complied with, it is followed by an order dismissing the suit, and once there is such a dismissal, there can be no revision because the remedy is by way of an appeal against the decree. I overrule the preliminary objection, on the strength of the Bench decision.

On the merits I think that the District Munsif gave a wrong meaning to the words net profits occurring in S. 7, Cl. (v)(c) of the Court Fees Act. If a land pays revenue, the valuation of court-fees is either under Cl. (a) if the revenue is permanently settled, or under Cl. (b) if it is not so settled. If the land pays no revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, it is provided that the calculation is to be on fifteen times the net profits that arose from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint, or on the value of the land, if no such net profits have arisen. Having regard to the distinction made in the sub-clause between cases of land subject to payment of revenue and cases of land not subject to payment of revenue but which had yielded net pr ofits, it is legitimate to hold that the term has been used to mean net income or yield from the land and not profits to the holder or the owner of the land. Profits ordinarily mean excess of returns over outlay. In Whartons Law Lexicon, the word is stated to mean the advantages which land yields in the shape of rent, issues, or other emoluments. In the context in which the words net profits are used in the Court Fees Act they mean the net income from the land after deducting from the gross yield t he charges of labour and cultivation.

It is only if we take into account the fact that melwaram was due and payable on this land that we arrive at the result reached by the District Munsif, namely, that far from there having been any profits, the position was really the other way round, the liability far exceeding the income. But if we understand net profits in the sense in which I think they have been used in the Court Fees Act there is no such difficulty. It is common ground that in the year preceding the filing of the plaint the net realisation from these lands was Rs. 106.

I allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the lower Court. Costs here will be costs in the cause.