Harnam Singh, J.
1. Walaiti Ram instituted Civil Suit No. 259 of 1951 under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, 1877, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In that suit court-fee worth Rs. 90/- was paid on the plaint.
2. On 15-12-1952, the Court of first instance dismissed Civil suit No. 259 of 1951 with costs.
3. Walaiti Ram applies to the High Court for the revision of the judgment and the decree passed in Civil Suit No, 259 of 1951. On the application under Section 44, Punjab Courts Act, 1918, court-fee worth Rs. 4/- is paid.
4. In this Court difference having arisen between the Stamp Reporter and the counsel for Walaiti Ram as to the amount of court-fee payable on the memorandum for revision the question was referred to the Taxing Officer for decision.
5. Finding that the question raised was one of general importance the Taxing Officer has referred the question for decision to the Taxing judge of the Court.
6. Article 13, Schedule I, Court-fees Act, was originally inserted in the Act by the Punjab Courts Act, 1884. In 1912 Article 13, Schedule I was repealed but was again revived in 1922. Clearly, applications to the High Court of Punjab (India) for the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 44, Punjab Courts Act are leviable with court-fee under Article 13 of Schedule I. In the case of other High Courts, applications for revision will come under Schedule II, Article 11.
7. Mr. Mela Ram Aggarwal urges that Article 13, Schedule I, Court-fees Act does not apply to applications for revision against decrees and orders passed in appeal. In my judgment, the words 'the fee leviable on a memorandum of appeal' occurring in the last column of that Article deal with the method to be followed for the computation of court-fee. In plain English Article 13, Schedule I, provides that fee leviable on a memorandum for revision is the court-fee leviable on memorandum of appeal.
8. Mr. Mela Ram Aggarwal then urges that read-Ing Article 13 of Schedule I with Article 11 of Schedule II, fee payable on the memorandum for revision is Rs. 4/-.
9. From the provisions of Article 11 of Schedule II, Court-fees Act it is plain that that Article provides court-fee to be paid on a memorandum of appeal when the appeal is not from a decree or anorder having the force of a decree. As statedhereinbefore, in Civil Revision No. 130 of 1953 thecorrectness of the decree passed in Civil suit No.259 of 1951 is challenged.
10. In these proceedings it is said that when a suit under Section 9 of the Act is dismissed no decree is passed. I do not accept the argument. In a suit under Section 9 of the Act the decree must either dismiss the suit or order the plaintiff to be put into possession by the defendant, such decree being based on previous possession and dispossession merely and not on title. In this connection reference may be made to -- 'Daw Po v. U Po Hmyin', AIR 1940 Rang 91 (A). In -- 'Daw Po v. U Po Hmyin (A)' Dunkley J. said:
'The plaint in such a suit must aver previous possession tnd dispossession by the defendants otherwise than in due course of law within six months of the suit being brought, and should aver nothing else, and the only prayer in such a suit can be a prayer for the recovery of possession. The decree must either dismiss the suit or order the plaintiffs to be put into possession by the defendant, such decree being based on previous possession and dispossession merely and not on title.'
11. From the definition of the word 'decree'given in Section 2(2), Civil P. C. it is plain that when la suit is dismissed on merits decree must follow. In dismissing the suit the Court gives a decision which is complete and final as regards that Court.
12. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that in Civil Revision No. 130 of 1953, 'ad valorem' court-fee should be paid on the memorandum for re-vision under Article 13 of Schedule I read with Article 1 of Schedule I, Court-fees Act.
13. In the result, I order the plaintiff-applicant to pay court-fee worth Rs. 90/- on the memorandum for revision on or before 5-10-1953.