JUDGMENT

B.D. Gupta, J. - This is an appeal from an order of the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge of Kanpur rejecting a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the judgment debtor in connection with proceedings for execution of a decree for, among other things, pendente lite and future mesne profits. There is no controversy that the plaintiff-decree-holder, who is a deity, had been allowed to sue as a pauper. When the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree for mesne profits the objection, among others, raised on behalf of the judgment-debtor was that execution could not proceed in respect of mesne profits, regarding which the decree-holder had not yet paid any court-fee, until court-fee was paid by the decree-holder. The learned Additional Civil Judge took the view that the amount of court-fee payable on mesne profits would be a lien on the money that may be realised by execution and the decree-holder will not be allowed to receive any amount so realised until court-fee was paid, but that court-fee was not a condition precedent before execution could be proceeded with. Having beard learned counsel for the judgment-debtor-appellant we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Additional Civil Judge is perfectly correct and this appeal is devoid of merit.

2. Before proceeding to deal with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant on merit, we would like to observe that it is settled law that the question of payment of court-fee is primarily a matter between the Government and the person concerned and that the other party cannot question an order relating to a question of court-fee on the ground that a valuable right of that party is involved. In the ease of Mahasay Ganesh Prasad Ray v. Narendra Nath Sen, A.I.R. 1963 SC 431 it was held that as regards a question of court-fee it was not open to the other party to attack an order granting to an appellant time to enable him to make good deficiency in court-fee, even on the ground that such an order affected his valuable right to plead the bar of limitation. In the case of Sri Rathnavamanraja v. Smt. Vimla, A.I.R. 1961 SC 1299 the Supreme Corot again reiterated the principle that the question whether proper court-fee was paid or not was primarily a question between the plaintiff and the State and that the defendant who may believe, and even honestly, that proper court-fee has not been paid by the plaintiff has still no right to move the superior courts by appeal or in revision against the order adjudging payment of court-fee payable on the plaint. It appears, therefore. to be clear that the judgment debtor-appellant's grievance on the score; of non-payment of court-fee by the decree-holder is misconceived inasmuch as the judgment-debtor-appellant is not essentially interested in the question whether the decree-holder-respondent is made to pay court-fee on the amount claimed by way of mesne profits or is allowed to execute his decree for mesne profits without paying court-fee thereon.

3. Quite apart from the above consideration we have also heard learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the question in the present case. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the order declaring the decree-holder-respondent to be a pauper as a result of which the respondent was allowed to sue as a pauper cannot ensure to the benefit of the respondent in respect of the amount due as mesne profits which may be in excess of the provisional amount, if any, which may have been included in the plaint as part of the relief claimed by the respondent because the permission to sue as a pauper should be construed as confined to the relief actually put forward in the plaint. Learned counsel has urged that in an ordinary suit where the plaintiff pays court-fee on the amount provisionally claimed as mesne profits in the suit the plaintiff has to pay an additional court-fee for such amount as may, after determining the total amount due, be in excess o