JUDGMENT

1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an interlocutory order in an administration suit instituted by a creditor. The order in question calls upon the plaintiff to amend his plaint in the manner following, namely, to ascertain all the creditors of his debtor and the sums payable to them, to alter the valuation of the claim by the addition of the amount so ascertained to the amount due to himself, and to pay Court fees ad valorem on the amended valuation. The plaint recites that the first defendant, Amarnath Bose, on the 4th April 1911, borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,000 on a promissory note re-payable on demand with interest at 18 per cent. per annum that he has neither paid the prinoipal, nor the interest, and that, on the 23rd September 1911, he executed a trust deed in favour of the second defendant the Maharaja of Cossimbazar, whereby he transferred all his Immovable properties to the trustee with direction to pay up all his creditors inclusive of the plaintiff. The plaint further recites that the trustee has taken possession of the trust properties, but has not paid the plaintiff his dues, and so far as the plaintiff can ascertain, the trustee has not paid up the other creditors of the first defendant The plaintiff, accordingly, prays that the estate may be administered, that an account may be taken of the trust properties and their income, that a Receiver may be appointed for the purpose, that the creditors may be ascertained by issue of public notice, and that their debts may be determined and paid. The plaintiff also asks for leave to conduct the suit on behalf of all the creditors with liberty to the other creditors to join as co-plaintiffs, should they so desire. The plaintiff alleges that the sum due to him on the date of the commencement of the suit was Rs. 1,540, and that the sums payable to the other creditors would exceed Rs. 5,000. He valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 6,540 but paid Court-fees on his own claim only, viz., Rs. 105 on a valuation of Rs. 1,540. He paid an additional sum of Rs. 10 apparently on the ground that the claim for administration could not be estimated at a money value within the meaning of Schedule II, Article 17(VI) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The suit was instituted on the 3rd April 1914, and after it had advanced considerably it came up for hearing on the 6th April 1916 when a preliminary objection was taken on the question of Court-fees payable on the plaint. It may be stated that the first defendant, the debtor, had died meanwhile, and his infant heirs had been brought on the record on the 29th March 1915. The Subordinate Judge took up the question of Court-fees and made the order we are now called upon to revise. The question raised is one of first impression, and we have had the advantage of arguments not only on behalf of the plaintiff and the trustee defendant, but also by the Senior Government Pleader who appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State as a question of the revenues of the Crown was concerned.

2. It is plain that the Court Fees Act, 1870, does not in express terms provide for an administration suit. We mast consequently consider the, nature of an administration suit which is explained in Standard Treatises on Equity Pleading and Chancery Practice. Lord Redesdale (Pleadings in Chancery, page 167) points out that, as early as 1766, in Corry v. Tried (unreported) some of a number of creditors, parties to a trust deed for payment of debts were permitted to sue, on behalf of themselves and the other creditors named in the deed, for execution of the trust, although one of those creditors could not in that case have sued for a single demand without bringing the other creditors before the Court: Worraker v. Pryer (1876) 2 Ch. D. 109 : 45 L.J. Ch. 273 : 24 W.R. 269, This seems to have been permitted purely to save expenses and delay; if a great number of creditors, thus especially provided for by a deed of trust, were to be made pla