JUDGMENT P. K. Mattoo, F. C—This is a revision petition under section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter called the Act) against the judgment and orders of the Commissioner dated 10-8-1975 whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 23-9-1975, of the learned Collector, Solan, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 17-5-1975 of the learned Assistant Collector, Grade 1, Solan. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent at length. I have also considered the records of the case. 3. The first point contended before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the lower Courts had in the face of admission of the respondent to the contrary in the original plaint awarded a decree for Rs. 3,365.^5 which involved a double payment in respect of arrears of rent for Kharif 1969. In this connection the learned counsel invited my attention to the plaint in the original suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,365,65. Para 2 of the plaint reads as follows : "That on 9-1-1968 the plaintiff leased out the suit land to Amia Chand Defendant No. 1, from January, 1968 to August, 1969 and the rent agreed upon was Rs. 1300/- exclusive of land revenue which was to be paid by the lessee and in respect of this a writing was executed by Defendant No. 1. A certified copy of the same is filed herewith. The original document is on the file of the Tehsildar at No. 5, titled "Narinder Singh versus Ram Sarup and others". The lessee tenant paid Rs. 300/- at the time of execution of the writing and the balance lease money • Rs. 1,000/ after that." 4. On behalf of the respondent it was contended by learned counsel for the respondent that para 2 of the plaint had to be read along with para 6 of the plaint. Para 6 reads as follows : "That the Defendants have since 1969 been cultivating the land, and are thus liable to pay to the plaintiff for use and occupation a sum of Rs. 3,365.65 which according Co the statement of produce prepared by the Tehsil office Kanungo works out to the said amount and which is attached herewith." 5. Para 6 reads as follows : "That the Defendants have since 1969 been cultivating the land, and are thus liable to pay to the plaintiff for use and occupation a sum of Rs. 3,365.65 which according Co the statement of produce prepared by the Tehsil office Kanungo works out to the said amount and which is attached herewith." 5. Para 2 of the plaint is to be read along with para 6 thereof. It is quite clear from the contents of paras 2 and 6 taken together that no material irregularity had been committed by the courts below in computing the decretal amount on this score. 6. The second point contended before me was that while drawing up ihe decree, the learned* Assistant Collector, Grade I, Solan had awarded costs to the extent of Rs. 327.75 as Pleaders fee in spite of the fact that no certificate id support of this claim hid been filed before the Assistant Collector as required under the provisions of rule 17 of Chapter 16-B of the Punjab High Courts Rules and Orders Vol. I. On behalf of the respondent it was urged that the provisions of High Court Rules and Orders were not applicable to the proceedings before the Assistant Collector Grade 1 and even ii these were applicable the petitioner had not agitated this point at the appellate stage and as such was barred from raising this point at the revisional stage. The learned counsel placed reliance upon:— Gugan Singh v. Ram Lal, LLT 1962 page 60. Waryam Singh v. Chuhara and others, LLT 1964 page 18. Sheo Dayal and others v, Harpat and another, LLT 1964 page 89. Pirthi Raj and another v. Dharama and another, LLT 1964 page 90. Hari Chand v. Barkat and others, LLT 1965 page 37. Amin Lal and others v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and another, LLT 1968 page 54. Amar Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and another, LLT 1969 page 91. Anant Ram etc. v. Ravinder Kumar, LLT 1970 page 35. Nandu Ram v. Dhianu Ram and others, LLT 1970 page 69. Gulzar Singh v, Kulwctnt Rai, PLJ 1971 page 395. Hari Singh and another v. Mahant Hardial Singh and another, PLJ 1971 page 843. Shrimati Goran v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and other, PLJ 1971 page 908. The learned counsel also cited— Ganga Bishen and another v. Murree Brewery Co. Nandu Ram v. Dhianu Ram and others, LLT 1970 page 69. Gulzar Singh v, Kulwctnt Rai, PLJ 1971 page 395. Hari Singh and another v. Mahant Hardial Singh and another, PLJ 1971 page 843. Shrimati Goran v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and other, PLJ 1971 page 908. The learned counsel also cited— Ganga Bishen and another v. Murree Brewery Co. of Rawalpindi, AIR 128 Lahore page 800. The State of Kerala v. K. M. Charia Abdulla & Co., AIR 1965 S. C. page 1585. Dhaunkal Sheo Ram v, Man Kauri Ram Jas and another, AIR 1970 Punjab & Haryana page 431. 7. The rulings cited by the counsel are not directly relevant to the points at issue in the present revision petition and as such are not being discussed individually. 8. In so far as the High Court Rules and Orders are concerned, section 88 of the Act reads as follows : Section 88. (1) The State Government may make rules consistent with this Act for regulating the procedure of Revenue Courts in matters under this Act for which a procedure is not prescribed thereby, and may by any such rule direct that any provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply, with or without modification, to all or any classes of cases before these Courts. (2) Until rules are made under sub section (1) and subject to those rules when made and to the provisions of this Act— (a) The Code of Civil Procedure shall, so far as it is applicable apply to all proceedings in Revenue Courts whether before or after decree ; and (b) the Financial Commissioner shall, in respect of those proceedings, be deemed to be the High Court within the meaning of that Code, and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, exercise, as regards the Courts under his control, all the powers of a High Court under the Code. 9. Financial Commissioners standing order No. 3 takes note of the fact that no rules have been framed under the provisions of section 88 of the Act by the State Government. It is specifically mentioned in para 4 of Financial Commissioners standing order No. 3 that in the absence of any special rules, the procedure of revenue Court is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and Rules and Orders of the High Court so far as these are applicable. It is specifically mentioned in para 4 of Financial Commissioners standing order No. 3 that in the absence of any special rules, the procedure of revenue Court is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and Rules and Orders of the High Court so far as these are applicable. It has been held in Wazir Chandw. Zainu alias Rainu, LLT 1961 p. 43 that the State Government not having exercised the right to frame rules, the proceedings in Revenue Courts are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been further held that this being the position attachments in execution of decrees are governed by section 60 and Order 21 of the Code and the rules framed thereunder by the High Court. It has also been held in Gugan Singh v. Ram Pah LLT 1962 page 60 cited by the learned counsel for the respondent that since no rules as required under section 88 of the Punjab Tenancy Act have been framed by State Government the Code of Civil Procedure so far as applicable, applies to all proceedings in the revenue Courts. 10. In case the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that the High Court Rules and Orders are not applicable to proceedings under Punjab Tenancy Act is accepted, a void will be left which will have the effect of interfering with the smooth and proper disposal of cases in the revenue courts. While it is a fact that the High Court Rules and Orders cannot in their entirety be made applicable to proceedings before the Revenue Courts, in the absence of any provision to the contrary in any rule or standing orders of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Courts will-have to fall back upon the provisions of relevant High Court Rules and Orders. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that High Court Rules and Orders are not applicable to proceedings before the Revenue Courts can, therefore, not be sustained, 11. The learned counsel for the respondent also made a point that the petitioner had not raised the question of non-admissibility of Pleaders fee amounting to Rs. 327.75 before any subordinate Court. It has been conceded by the learned counsel of the petitioner that the issue had not been raised by the petitioner at the appellate stage. The learned counsel for the respondent also made a point that the petitioner had not raised the question of non-admissibility of Pleaders fee amounting to Rs. 327.75 before any subordinate Court. It has been conceded by the learned counsel of the petitioner that the issue had not been raised by the petitioner at the appellate stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the mistake which had been incorporated in the proceedings by a contravention of the provisions of rule 17 of Chapter 16-B of the High Court Rules and Orders was a material irregularity and was curable at the revisional stage. 12. According to sub-section (5) of section 84 of the Act, the Financial Commissioner may interfere on revisional side if the subordinate court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It has been held in Lakshbir Singh v Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, LLT 1965 p.5 that where order passed by the Collector was not in accordance with law and procedure, interference in revision was justified. Non-compliance with the provisions of the High Court Rules and Orders as applicable to the proceedings before revenue courts amounts to not acting in accordance with the law and procedure. As such, I find that despite the fact that the matter was not agitated at the appellate stage, necessary relief can be made available to the petitioner in revision on this Court. 13 The Assistant Collector, Solan while drawing up the decree and awarding Rs. 327.75 as Pleaders fee did comply with the requirements of rule 17 of Chapter 16-B of High Court Rules and Orders Vol. 1. According to rule 17 of Chapter 16-B of the High Court Rules and Orders Vol. 1, the fee could not have been included in the decree unless the party claiming to have such fee allowed had before the commencement of the argument at the conclusion of the evidence, filed in the Court a certificate signed by the legal practitioner certifying the amount of the fee or fees actually paid by or on behalf of his client to him or to any other legal practitioner in whose place he may have appeared. No such certificate is on record in the present case. No such certificate is on record in the present case. It can, therefore, be concluded that the Assistant Collector Grade-1 was wrong in awarding Rs. 327.75 as Pleaders fee in favour of the respondent. 14. Taking into account the above-mentioned facts I hold that the petitioner is entitled to a relief to the extent of Rs. 327 75 and accordingly order that the decree of Assistant Collector Grade-1 shall stand modified to that extent. The petitioner is not entitled to any other relief. 15. In view of the special circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. Orders to be communicated.