A pauper plaintiff is not liable to pay court-fee on any petition, appointment of pleader or other proceeding connected with the suit, including a review petition.

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTITF is the petitioner. She was permitted to file the suit as a pauper. She obtained a preliminary decree for partition. In course of the final decree proceedings, she filed a petition for taking accounts of the mesne prows. , By an order dated 13-12-1961, the learned Munsif new

"therefore the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 1050/-from the defendant towards the mesne protits tor seven years in respect of her share. Plaintiff to pay the C. F. payable on the mesne profits by 18-121961. " the court-fee as directed was not paid, on 22-12-1951. the learned trial Court passed an order to the effect-"since the plaintiff did not pay court-tee payable on. the mesne profits, there can be no decree in respect on the mesne profits. . . . . The decree be made final. . . . . On 11-1-1962 the final decree was sealed and signed, are 1-2-1962 the plaintiff filed an application to recall the order dated 2312-1961. But this application was rejected on 12-2-1962 as no order had been passed on 13-12-1961. It may be incidentally noted that the learned Munsif should not have rejected this application taking a technical view that no order had been passed on the 23rd which was obviously a mistake for 22nd. On 15-2-1962, the plaintiff tiled another application for recalling the order dated 22-12-1961. On 16-2-1962, the learned trial court passed an order to the effect. "perused the petition. Heard the lawyer. The petition is allowed. The order passed on 22-12-61 is hereby recaned. include the amount of mesne profits in the final decree. The court-fee will be payable by the party after necessary orders. " the plaintiff filed a petition on 28-2-1962 tor drawing up a fresh final decree in We light of the above order. On 254-1952 the learned trial Court passed an order whereby he recalled the order passed by him on 16-2-1962 on the basis that he cannot correct the order dated 22-12-1961 of his predecessor under Section 151, c. P. C. On 12-5-1961 (1982 ?), the plaintiff filed another petition tor revising the aforesaid order. On 22-6-1962, the learned Munsif heard both the parties and dismissed the petition. The Civil Revision has been filed against the orders dated 25-4-1962.

( 2 ) MR. Sen advanced the following contentions.

(i) The order dated 22-12-1961 refusing to include we claim for mesne protits in the final decree is erroneous on the face of it as no court-fee is payable by the paper plaintiff under order 33 rule S, C. P. C. and unaer section 11 of the Court-fees Act, 1870 read with Orissa Amendment; (ii) The order dated 22-12-1961 and the final decree passed on 11-11952 could be corrected and reviewed by the learned trial Court under sections 151, 152 and order 47, Rule 1 C. P. C. , and (iii) The order passed by the learned trial Court on 16-2-1961 recalling the order dated 22-12-61 was valid ana legal and the subsequent order, dated 25-4-1962 recalling the order dated 16-2-1962 and the order dated 22-6-1962 refusing to recall the order dated 25-4-1962 are illegal and without jurisdiction.

( 3 ) IN his order dated 13-12-1961, Sri C. S. Patnaik, the then learned Munsif, decided that the plaintiff was entitled to receive Rs. 1050/- trom the defendant towards the mesne profits for seven years in respect of her snare and the plaintiff was to pay the court-fee payable on the mesne profits by 18-12-1961. Though the words "mesne profits" have been throughout used, strictly speaking the claim does not come within the definition of mesne pro-tifs" as defined in Section 2 (12), c. P. C. It has not (sic) been finally settled by a Bench decision of this court, reported in Udekar v. Chandra Sekhar, AIR 1961 Orissa 111 that the expression "mesne profits", as defined in Section 2 (12), C. P. C. is restricted only to those profits which are derived by a person in wrongful possession of property belonging to another. It has no application! to profits accountable by a person not in wrongful possession of the property such as by a co