Honble MITAL, J.–The respondent No.1 plaintiff has raised the question of sufficiency of court fees through an application under Section 47 of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 read with Section 151 C.P.C. in the instant appeal preferred by defendant Krishna Kumar Bagla against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.97 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Udaipur in Civil Suirt No. 13/86 whereby the suit of respondent No.1-plaintiff was decreed for a sum of Rs. 8, 59, 194.55 with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 17% per annum with quarterly rest. The appellant has valued the subject matter of the appeal and has affixed court fees of Rs.43,525/-.

(2). The respondent No.1-plaintiff has submitted an application that the appel- lant has not valued the subject matter of the appeal in accordance with the provision under Section 47 of Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as `Act of 1961) because the interest accrued during the pendency of the suit till the date of the decree has not been included while calculating the subject matter of the appeal. Therefore, the appellant has not paid proper court fees and the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this court alone or the appellant may be directed to furnish sufficient court fees in accordance with the provision of Section 47 of the Act of 1961. The learned counsel for the appellant has opposed this application though the reply has not been filed.

(3). I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. I also perused the relevant provision under Section 47 of the Act of 1961. As already stated above the learned trial Court has granted pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 17% per annum till the date of realisation on payment of court fees. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Court fees is not payable on the amount of cost awarded under the decree if no ground is specifically raised against the award of cost and the same principle is applicable in respect of interest pendente lite which is awarded by the court in exercise of its power and discretion under section 34 C.P.C. It is further submitted that interest shall become subject matter of appeal only when the award of the interest pendente lite or furture is also made one of the grounds of challenge of the decree in the appeal. I am not inclined to agree with this contention in view of the Explanation (3) to Section 47 of the Act of 1961. Section 47 of the Act of 1961 provides for the payment of Court fees on appeals which reads as under :-

``47. Appeals :- The fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the Court or first instance on the subje- ct-matter of the appeal:

Provided that, in levying fee on a memorandum of appeal against a final decree by a person whose appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the Court of first instance or by the Court of appeal is pending, credit shall be given for the fee paid by such person in the appeal against the preliminary decree.

(4). This provision also contains five explanations, but for our discussion Explanation No. (3) is relevant which runs as follows:-

``Explanation.-(3) In claims which include the award of interest subsequent to the institution of the suit, the interest accrued during the pendency of the suit till the date of decree shall be deemed to be part of the subject-matter of the appeal except where such interest is relinquished.

(5). Thus, we find that Explanation (3) of Sec. 47 inserts a deeming provision that the interest pendente lite shall form subject-matter of appeal where the claims include the award of interest subsequent to the institution of the suit. The only exception where such interest will not be part of the subject- matter of the appeal is, when the interest is relinquished. This view was also taken in S.B. Civil First Appeal (Defect Case) No. 1589/97, Order dated 9

Click Here to Read the rest of this document