JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. This is an appeal under section 10 of the Letters Patent against a decision of one of the Judges of this Court. The suit was brought for possession of certain zamindari property, and for the purposes of the suit the claim was laid at Rs. 330, namely, five times of Rs. 66, stated to be the proportionate amount of the revenue of the land. It was found that the statement so made in the plaint was slightly inaccurate, and that in consequence of the inaccuracy an additional court-fee of annas twelve was payable. That amount was promptly paid, but after the time allowed by the law of limitation had expired, In consequence of this the court of first instance dismissed the suit. On appeal, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the fault was as much that of the Munsarim in not detecting the error as of the plaintiff himself in supplying inaccurate facts, and setting aside the dismissal by the lower court, decreed the plaintiff's claim. On appeal to the High Court, the learned Judge from whose decision the present appeal has been preferred, came to the conclusion that the court of first instance was right. It appears to us that the case is settled by an authority which we are bound to follow unless and until it is over-ruled by higher authority. That is the case of Muhammad Ahmad v. Muhammad Seroj-ud-din,[1901] I.L.R., 23 All., 423.. That was a stronger case than the one before us, for in it materials were given whereby the Munsarim, if he had exercised any supervision over the calculation of the court-fee, must having regard to the statements contained in the plaint have discovered that the plaintiff had made a mistake in calculation. 2. In that case the amount of the profits was entered as Rs. 8-4-0, and the plaint stated that 15 times that sum was equal to Rs. 108-12-0, whereas 15 times that amount comes to Rs. 123-12-0. The Munsarim did not detect this mistake and reported that the plaint was properly stamped. The learned Judges held that it was the duty of the plaintiff to give correct particulars in the plaint; they state in the course of their judgment, “it may? be that had he (the Munsarim) gone, over the plaintiff's calculation, he would have discovered the mistake. The learned Judges held that it was the duty of the plaintiff to give correct particulars in the plaint; they state in the course of their judgment, “it may? be that had he (the Munsarim) gone, over the plaintiff's calculation, he would have discovered the mistake. We are not prepared to hold, and no authority has been cited to us for holding, that it was that officer's duty to check the plaintiff's calculation.” We have been referred to rule 12 of the Rules of the Court of the 4th of April, 1894. which describes the duties of the Munsarim in this respect as follows:— ” A Munsarim of a Civil Court appointed to receive plaints shall examine each plaint presented to him and shall report thereon whether the provisions of Acts Nos. VII of 1870 and XIV of 1882, have been observed, etc.” Now it appears to us that the duty of the Munsarim would be fulfilled if on an examination of the statement in the plaint as to the value, he finds the value is calculated at 5 times the revenue of the land given in the plaint, and that it is not incumbent upon him to examine and ascertain whether the revenue so stated is or is not the correct amount of revenue of the property. In the plaint in the present case there is a lengthy detail of the property given, and in it is stated the jama of the various items of property the subject matter of the suit and also the proportionate share of the jama which was payable in respect of the property. By a calculation of these particulars, the Munsarim might have ascertained that the, proportionate amount of the revenue stated in the earlier part of the plaint was inaccurate, but it seems to us that it would be laying too heavy a burden on the Munsarim to require ‘him to make such a calculation. We think that when the plaintiff clearly stated the value of his claim and the amount of the revenue payable in respect of the subject matter of the suit, the Munsarim was entitled to accept the accuracy of the statements so made and report upon the sufficiency of the court-fee accordingly. We think that when the plaintiff clearly stated the value of his claim and the amount of the revenue payable in respect of the subject matter of the suit, the Munsarim was entitled to accept the accuracy of the statements so made and report upon the sufficiency of the court-fee accordingly. The case is no doubt a hard one because the sum involved is very small and it was promptly made good but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. For these reasons and having regard to the decision to which we have referred, we cannot see our way to interfere with the ruling of the learned Judge of this Court from whose decision this appeal has been preferred. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.