1. In this ease the plaintiff brought a suit asking for certain declarations. The suit was partly decreed and partly-dismissed. The plaintiff appealed against so much of his claim as was disallowed and he paid a Court-fee of Rs. 10. The defendant filed no appeal but on receiving notice of the plaintiff's appeal, he filed cross-objections on a stamp of Rs. 2. The taxing clerk made a report to the effect that the cross objection should bear a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 10 just as if the respondent had appealed, apparently applying the analogy of Article 17, Schedule II, of the Court Fees Act. The Taxing Officer is doubtful as to the accuracy of this and he has sent the case on to me as Taxing Judge for my decision. He has pointed out that the only place in the Court Fees Act in which cross-objections are mentioned is in Article 1, Schedule I, of the Act. Under that Article the cross-objector must pay an ad valorem fee according to the value of the subject-matter in dispute. Article 17, Schedule II, though it relates to a plaint or memorandum of appeal in the classes of suits mentioned therein, does not relate to cross-objections filed in similar suits. This Act was amended when Act V of 1908 was passed and the words or cross-objections were added to Article 1 of Schedule I, but not to Article 17 of Schedule II. Under the former Article the cross-objector must pay an ad valorem fee according to the value or amount of the subject-matter in dispute. In the present case the respondent has valued the relief which he seeks in his cross-objection at Rs. 1,000. He must, therefore, pay this large fee when the appellant in the case can appeal on payment of only Rs. 10. It appears to me that this is perhaps due to an oversight at the time when Act V of 1908 was passed in not adding the words 'or cross-objection' to Article 17 of Schedule II. I allow the respondent three weeks within which to make good the deficiency.