JUDGMENT - (1) This reference has been made by the Taxling Officer under s. 5 of the Court-Fees Act, and the learned Chief Justice has directed us to decide the question so raised. The question relates to the Court-fees chargeable on four appeals, each arising from an order passed under s. 24 of the Bombay Money-lenders Act, 1946. In three of the four cases, applications filed by judgment-debtors under S. 24 of the Act for making the decretal amounts payable by instalments were rejected by the Courts below. In the forthe case,the application of the judgment-debtor was partally granted and the judgment-debtor has come in appeal on the ground that the relief granted to him was inadequate. The Taxing Officer was of the view that no appeal could be filed from a decision under s. 24 of the Bombay Money-lenders Act and that the appellants in the four appeals may, if they so desired, convert the appeals into civil revision applications and that Court-fees may then be levied on that basis. the Taxing Officer, however, felt that the question involved was of generalimportance and hence he made this reference.

(2) The question aised by the Taxing Officer is not free from difficulrty. Section 24 of the Bombay Money-lenders Act, 1946, is in the following terms:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court may, at any time, on application of a judgment-debtor, after notice to the decree-holder, direct that the amount of any decree passed against him, whether before or after the date on which this Act comes into force, in respect of a loan, shall be aid in such mnumber of instalments and subject to such conditions, and payable on such dates, as having regard to the circumstances of the jedgment-debtor and the amount of the decree, it considers fit".

The Bombay Money-lenders Act does not provide any appeal from an order granting or rejecting an application under S. 24. If the order is one not amounting to a decree, it is obviously not appealale, as it is not covered by S. 104 and Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. an appeal from the order can be maintaine only if the order is a "decree" as defined by S. 2(2) of the Code. that definition is in two parts. The first part defines "decree" as "the formal expression of an adjudication which so far as regards the Court Expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be ether preliminary or final". The second part of the definition includes in the term "decree" orders which any otherwise not be decrees. This part, so far as it is material, says that the term "decree" "shall be deemed to include ......the determination of any question within S. 47 ....... An order under S. 24 of the Bombay Mony-lenders Act can be held to be a decree either if it determines a question relating to the execution, dischargeor satisfaction of a decree under s. 47 of the Code, or if it comes within the first part of the definition of the word "decree". On behalf on the appellants in the four appeals, Mr. Paranjape and Mr. Adik urged that an order under S. 24 of the Bombay Money-lendes Act is a determination of a question within S. 47 of the Code and, alternatively, that it amounts to a decree according to the first part of the definition of that term.

(3) We will deal first with the First of these alternative arguments. The Taxing Officer was of the view that a judgment-debtor seeking a direction under S. 24 of the Bombay Money-lenders Act eeks in effect a partial modification of the decree passed against him, and that therefore an order passed by the Court either allowing or rejecting him application cannot be regarded as an order relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of that decree. This view of the Taxing Officer assumes what undoubtedly is the general rule, namely, that an executing Court will execute a decree as it is, without any modification or qualification. Nothing, ho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document