N. VENKATACHALA, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision petition, the plaintiff in the suit, OS No, 7725/80, before the Court of the XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, seeks revision of an order made therein on 20-10-1982 regarding payment of Court fee by him. ( 2 ) IN that suit, the reliefs sought by the plaintiff were for recovery of (i) possession of the plaint schedule building; (ii) arrears of rent claimed as past mesne profits ; (iii) current and future rents claimed as future mesne profits to be determined under Or. 20, R. 12 of CPC ; and (iv) costs. For purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction, he valued the relief of recovery of possession at Rs. 6,600 purporting to be under S. 41 (2) of the Kar. Court Fees and suits valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the relief of past mesne profits at Rs, 4,125 purporting to be under S. 42 (1) of the Act, and paid court fee payable thereon. ( 3 ) ON an application, IA II, filed by the plaintiff in the said suit while it was pending, it is undisputed, the trial Court made an order on 21-4-1980 directing defendant-1 to deposit to the credit of the suit, the monthly rents of the plaint schedule building claimed as mesne profits which had fallen due upto that date and may fall due during the pendency of the suit at the rate of Rs. 550 per month. Pursuant to that order, defendant 1, it appears, deposited a sum of Rs, 13,750 to the credit of the suit and the trial Court, by its order dt. 7-11-1981, permitted the plaintiff to withdraw that amount. It transpires that when similar sums of Rs. 3,850 and Rs. 1,100 deposited by defendant-1, were sought to be withdrawn by the plaintiff by filing in Court payment vouchers on 7-7- 1982 and 21 8-1982, the trial Court, by its order now under revision, refused such withdrawal being of the view that S. 42 of the Act forbids the same. It transpires that when similar sums of Rs. 3,850 and Rs. 1,100 deposited by defendant-1, were sought to be withdrawn by the plaintiff by filing in Court payment vouchers on 7-7- 1982 and 21 8-1982, the trial Court, by its order now under revision, refused such withdrawal being of the view that S. 42 of the Act forbids the same. ( 4 ) THE question which, therefore, arises for my determination, is whether the trial court was right in its veiw of S. 42 of the act that a plaintiff landlord in a suit, for recovery of possession of his premises from a defendant-tenant, cannot be permitted to withdraw the current monthly rents (claimed as mesne profits) deposited by the latter to the credit of the suit, unless the Court fee is paid respecting such mesne profits. S. 42 of the Act, which requires payment of Court fee in suits for mesne profits, reads:"42. Suits for mesne profits :- (1) In a suit for mesne profits or for immovable property and mesne profits, fee shall in respect of mesne profits be computed where the amount is stated approximately and sued for, on such amount. If the profits ascertained to be due to the plaintiff are in excess of the profits as approximately estimated and sued for no decree shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits so ascertained is paid. (2) Where a decree directs an enquiry as to the mesne profits which have accrued on the property, whether prior or subsequent to the institution of the suit, no final decree shall be passed till the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits accrued due till the date of such decree is paid. (3) Where, for a period subsequent to the date of the decree or final decree, such decree or final decree directs payment of mesne profits at a specified rate, such decree or final decree shall not be executed until the fee computed on the amount claimed in execution has been paid". (3) Where, for a period subsequent to the date of the decree or final decree, such decree or final decree directs payment of mesne profits at a specified rate, such decree or final decree shall not be executed until the fee computed on the amount claimed in execution has been paid". ( 5 ) AS the trial Court has, in its order under revision, relied on the provisions in the sub -sections of S. 42 in support of its veiw that Court fee is payable by the plaintiff seeking withdrawal of mesne profits respecting the plaint schedule building, accrued due during the pendency of the suit and deposited by defendant-1 to the credit of the suit before ordering such withdrawal, it becomes necessary to examine the ambit and scope of applicability of those sub-sections to the case on hand. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 42 consists of two parts. The first part provides that in a suit either for mesne profits or for immovable property and mesne profits, fee shall, in respect of mesne profits, be computed on the amount of mesne profits approximately stated and sued for. The second part thereof provides that if the mesne profits ascertained to be due to the plaintiff are in excess of the-profits as approximately estimated and sued for in the suit, no decree shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable at the suit, had the suit comprised the whole of the profits so ascertained, is paid. The application of the provisions in this sub-section to the case on hand, cannot arise since the trial Court is not called upon to pass a decree relating to mesne profits exceeding the mesne profits approximately estimated and sued for and the fee payable on mesne profits approximately estimated and sued for in the suit has been paid already. ( 6 ) COMING to sub-sec. (2), it stated that where a decree directs an enquiry as to the mesne profits which have accrued on the property, whether prior or subsequent to the institution of the suit, no final decree shall be passed till the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable, had the suit comprised the whole of the profits accrued due till the date of such decree, is paid. The application of this provision to the case on hand cannot also arise as the trial court is not called upon to pass a final decree relating to difference of mesne profits accrued due either previously or subsequent to the institution to the suit. Lastly, sub-sec. (3) provides that where a decree or a final decree directs payment of future mesne profits at a specified rate and such mesne profits have accrued due before executing such decree, such decree shall not be executed by the Court until the fee computed or the amount claimed in execution has been paid. The application of this provision to the case on hand cannot at all arise, in that, no amount is sought to be recovered through the trial court by executing any decree or final decree. ( 7 ) THE above examination of the ambit of the provisions in sub sec. (1) to (3) of S. 42 of the Act and the inapplicability of any of them to the case on hand, make the view of the trial Court that the said provisions required payment of Court fee by the plaintiff before he could be permitted to withdraw the mesne profits (current rents) of the plaint schedule building deposited by defendant 1 to the credit of the suit, wholly unsustainable. ( 8 ) THE learned High Court Government pleader, whom I heard after notice to him, was unable to support the order under revision of the trial Court based on S. 42 of the Act. He was also unable to invite my attention to any other provision in the act which required payment of Court fee by the plaintiff petitioner before he could seek withdrawal of mesne profits (current rents) deposited by defendant-1 to the credit of the suit, even if it be in compliance with a direction issued by the trial court itself in that regard. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I answer the question arisen for my determination, in the negative. In the result, I allow this revision petition, set aside the order sought to be revised therein and direct the trial Court to pass payment of the vouchers as sought for by the plaintiff. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, in the circumstances, of this revision petition, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .