1. This is an appeal against the following order by the learned Judge of the Court below:
The appellant and his pleader are absent and. hence he is ordered to pay the deficit court-fee. If it has not been paid by 15th January 1943, this appeal shall stand dismissed on 16th January 1943.
We have examined the record and apparently the learned Judge assumed that he did not mean that the appeal should stand dismissed without further orders because on the application of the appellant he allowed, the appellant time to come to this Court and. obtain an order for stay so that the appeal might not be dismissed in pursuance of the order to which we have referred. However, that may be, the order of the learned Judge was apparently justified because the appellant did not appear to contest the allegation that the court-fee paid on his memorandum. Of appeal was insufficient. We have felt, however, that it would be advisable for us to go into the question of court-fees on the-merits in order to save time in case the ap. peal is still to be dismissed and in case there may be another appeal to this Court on the dismissal of the appeal. It appears that the appellant was the defendant in a suit for redemption. The court-fee paid was on the sum secured by the mortgage, namely Rs. 2000. The result of the suit was a decree in favour of the plaintiff for redemption on' payment by him of a sum of Rs. 1946-5-6. No pendente lite interest or costs were allowed. The defendant, therefore, filed an appeal claiming a further sum of Rs. 500. He paid his court-fee ad valorem on this sum. The Inspector of Stamps examined the record and reported to the Court that the fee should have been on the sum of Rs. 2000, that is the sum secured by the original mortgage. Learned Counsel for the appellant contests that this was a mistake. We have examined the Court-fees Act of this province and we cannot see our way to differing from the decision in Abdul Haq v. Shamsuddin : AIR1941All357 although we recognise that the situation is unsatisfactory. We feel that the Legislature might go into this matter and consider the amendment of the Court-fees Act. Learned Counsel has re ferred us to two rulings Pachayakkal v. Shanmugha Velayudhasami Gopanna Mannadiar ('43) 30 A.I.R. 1943 Mad. 146 and Sheikh Rahman v. Balchand ('37) 24 A.I.R. 1937 Nag. 6, but these are rulings based on Acts which are not in the same form as the Act in this province. In our judgment the report of the Inspector was right. The court-fees paid on the memorandum of appeal were deficient. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.