( 1 ) ). This revision application has been filed under sec. 4 of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1909 against an order made by the Taxing Officer in the matter of Court-fees. It is necessary to note the material facts of the case. The plaintiff filed the present Suit in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for a declaration that the notice of demolition issued by the Municipal Corporation was illegal and void. He also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the Corporation from demolishing the structure in question. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit fully. The Corporation challenged the decree in First Appeal No. 1000 of 1973. On 9th August 1977 the appeal was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellate decree passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged by the Corporation in a Letters Patent Appeal. In this Letters Patent Appeal the plaintiff has filed the cross-objections.

( 2 ) A question arose whether the court-fees was payable on the cross- objections filed by the plaintiff. The Taxing Officer held that Article 13 in Schedule II to the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 does not apply.

( 3 ) IT is that order which is challenged by the plaintiff in this Civil Revision Application.

( 4 ) THE Taxing Officer has rightly held that Article 13 in Schedule It is not applicable to the instant case. It apples to a memorandum of appeal when the appeal has not been filed from a decree or an order having the force of a decree. In the instant case the learned trial Judge has passed decree for declaration and permanent injunction. The High Court has confirmed that decree. The original decree passed by the learned trial Judge and the decree passed by the High Court are decrees properly so-called. The Taxing Officer was therefore justified in taking the view which he took.

( 5 ) HOWEVER he held that under sec. 6 (iv) (j) of the Bombay Court Fees Act 1959 Court-fee is payable on the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff. Sec. 6 (iv) (j) a plies to suits and not to memorandum of appeal or cross-objections. It has been argued by Mr. Patel that the suit is an appeal. So far as the scheme of Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 is concerned it is difficult to take the view that the suit includes the appeal. In that behalf reference may be made to sec. 7 of the Bombay Court-fees Act which contains a separate provision for appeal as distinguished from the original action. Similarly Art. 1 in Schedule I mentions a plaint as well as a memorandum of appeal and a memorandum of cross-objections. Therefore the scheme of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 as I understand is that where the Legislature wanted to provide for appeals they have expressly done so. Therefore the general principle that the appeal is the continuation of the suit cannot be applied to the instant case. Within the meaning of the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 the suits are suits that is to say original actions and appeals are appeals that is to say appellate actions. In my opinion sec. 6 (iv) (j) has therefore no application to the instant case.

( 6 ) HOWEVER in the instant case what happened was this. The learned trial Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit fully and recorded all findings in his favour. They included the finding that the delegation of power by the Municipal Commissioner to Deputy Town Development Officer to issue notices of the kind of the impugned notice was invalid and bad is law. In appeal the High Court confirmed the entire decree but reversed the finding on the question of delegation of power by the Municipal Commissioner to the Deputy Town Development Officer. The High Court held that the Municipal Commissioner had validly delegated the power to the Deputy Town Development Officer to issue the impugned notice or the notices belonging to that class. Even though this finding was recorded by the High Court the decree in its entirety passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent was confirmed on merits. In the Letters