JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal from the decision of a Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, on an application made by a displaced creditor under Section 13 of the Act.

2. There were four respondents and notices were issued to them. Three of them did not appear. Only one of them appeared and said that he had no objection to the decree being passed as claimed. He was in the nature of a pro forma respondent. A date was then fixed for the hearing of the application ex parte. On that date the tribunal was of the view that the claim was not maintainable inasmuch as the three respondents who did not appear were residing in a place to which the Act did not apply. It accordingly rejected the application.

3. The question is what court-fee is payable on the appeal. The appellant has paid a court-fee as on an appeal from an order not having the force of a decree under Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act, 1870. The question is whether the court-fee paid by him is correct or whether he should be required to pay an ad valorem court-fee under Article 1 of Schedule I as an appeal from a decree or an order having the force of a decree.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that Section 40 of the Act provides for appeals both from a final decree and a final order and that this being an appeal from a final order no ad valorem court-fee is payable. He refers me to S. 27 "Contents of decrees", which requires that "in all cases in which the Tribunal passes a decree on the application of a displaced person, it shall prepare a complete schedule of the creditors and of the assets and liabilities of the displaced person". No such schedule has been prepared in the present case and he says that the order passed by the tribunal is, therefore, not a decree. He also refers to the definition of "decree" as given in Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and says that the order passed by the Tribunal does not amount to an "adjudication conclusively determining the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy" and that the order cannot, therefore, be regarded as a decree.

5. Learned Junior Standing Counsel pointy out that the definition, as given in the Code of, Civil Procedure is no guide in the present case inasmuch as the word "decree" is not defined in the Court-fees Act, 1870 and that it is necessary, to look to the Act under which the order has been passed in order to determine whether the; order is, in fact, a decree or a mere order for the purposes of the Court-fees Act. I think, that his contention is correct and that it is necessary to look to the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, to find out whether the present decision of the Tribunal does or does not amount to a decree.

Section 13 is followed by Section 14 which describes the procedure on the petition of a displaced person. Sub-Section (1) provides for the issue of notice to the debtor calling upon him to show cause, if any against the application. Sub-Section (2) provides that if there is a dispute as to whether the applicant is a displaced creditor or not or as to the existence of the debt or as to the amount thereof, the Tribunal shall decide the matter, after taking such evidence as may be produced before it, and pass such decree in relation thereto as it thinks fit. Sub-Section (3) provides for a case in which there is either no such dispute or where the debtor has not appeared or has no cause to show. The present case will be governed by Sub-Section (3) for, as we have seen, the debtors did not appear at all. The sub-section is reproduced below :

"If there is no such dispute or if the debtor does not appear or has no cause to show, the Tribunal may, after considering the evidence placed before it, pass such decree in relation thereto as it thinks fit."

It would appear that under this sub-section the order which the tribunal passes would be a decree and I do not think it will be pos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document