Reilly, J.

1. These petitions relate to a suit in which the District Munsif of Calicut made a preliminary decree for the administration of the estate of one Rama Pattar on a creditors plaint. After that preliminary decree was made, two other creditors put in claims against Rama Pattars estate. The District Munsif has ordered that on those claims they must pay ad valorem Court-fee as if they were plaints. These revision petitions are against those orders.

2. It will he noticed that we are not concerned here with the question what Court-fee should be paid by a creditor who institutes an administration suit. The question is what Court-fee, if any, should be paid by another creditor who comes in with a claim after a preliminary decree for administration has been made in such a suit. The learned Government Pleader has admitted that there is no explicit provision in the Court Fees Act requiring any Court-fee to be paid on such a claim. But he has suggested that we should treat such claims as plaints for the purpose of the Court Fees Act. Except throwing out that suggestion he has not shown us, in my opinion, any good reason why we should extend the definition of the word "plaint" in that way. But his more serious argument is that such a1 creditors suit for administration is really a suit for an account, the plaintiff-creditor representing in it all the other creditors, who, being so represented, are in effect parties to the suit from the outset. His view of the suit is that the plaintiff-creditor may fix his own valuation and Court-fee in the first instance, but that, before any further amount than that on which he has paid the Court-fee can be recovered by any creditor, additional Court-fee must be paid--in some such way as it is required to be paid in other suits for accounts by Section 11 of the Court Fees Act. In a sense a creditors suit for administration is a suit for an account; but the analogy between it and an ordinary suit for an account will not in my opinion carry us far enough. First, it must be noticed that in an ordinary suit for an account, if a larger amount is found due to the plaintiff when the account is taken than that on which he has paid Court-fee, Section 11 of the Court Fees Act provides that he cannot execute his decree for the larger amount without paying additional Court-fee on it. That is not exactly what the learned Government Pleader is contending for in this instance. Here it is contended that the creditors other than the plaintiff-creditor must pay additional Court-fees at an earlier stage, not when they are executing any decree or order which they may eventually obtain in the suit, but when they put in their claims. And does a plaintiff-creditor in such an administration suit really represent all the other creditors? In one sense his suit is a suit for the benefit of all the creditors of the estate. But I think it is clear that the other creditors cannot be held to be represented by him in the sense that they are in effect parties to the suit from the outset. It is clear I think that, if during the pendency of the suit, before a preliminary decree for administration is made, a claim of one of the other creditors becomes barred by time, it is gone it cannot be enforced in the administration suit. That could not be if the other creditor had been represented by the plaintiff-creditor and was in effect a party to the suit from the start. On that subject it is useful to compare In re Greaves, Deceased. Bray v. Tofield (1881) 18 Ch.D. 551, which explains the English law on the subject; and I see no reason to suppose that the position in this country is different in that respect. Then it must be noticed that, before the preliminary decree for administration is made, if the person who represents the estate of the deceased pays off the plaintiff-creditors claim the suit will be dismissed, although none of the other creditors has been satisfied at all. That too shows that the plaintiff-creditor does not