SITA RAM Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the decision of a Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debts adjustment) Act, 1951, on an application made by a displaced creditor under Section 13 of the act.

(2.) THERE were four respondents and notices were issued to them. Three of them did not appear. Only one of them appeared and said that he had no objection to the decree being passed as claimed. He was in the nature of a 'pro forma' respondent. A date was then fixed for the hearing of the application 'ex parte'. On that date the tribunal was of the view that the claim was not maintainable inasmuch as the three respondents who did not appear were residing in a place to which the Act did not apply. It accordingly rejected the application.

(3.) THE question is what court-fee is payable I on the appeal. The appellant has paid a court-fee as on an appeal from an order not having the force of a decree under Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act, 1870. The ques- tion is whether the court-lee paid by him is correct or whether he should be required to pay an 'ad valorem' court-fee under Article 1 of Schedule I as an appeal from a decree or an order having the force of a decree.