JUDGMENT Ganga Nath, J. - This is an application in revision by Shiam Sunder and Ram Chander against the order of the learned District Judge, Moradabad, rejecting their application for refund of court-fee. A suit on a promissory note was brought against the Applicants in which the defence of the Applicants was struck off for non-compliance with the order of the trial Court awarding costs to the Plaintiffs and an ex-parte decree was passed. The Applicants went up in appeal against this ex-parte decree:, which was set aside by the learned District Judge and the suit was remanded for re-hearing to the trial Court. The Applicant was not allowed any refund of Court fee. He made an application for refund of the court-fee which, as already stated, was rejected. 2. The learned District Judge has rejected the application on the ground that there was no provision in the Court Fees Act for refund of court-fees where a suit was not remanded under O. 41, r. 23, of the Civil Procedure Code, . He has further held that the suit was not remanded under O. 41, r. 23, Civil Procedure Code, . because it had not been decided on a preliminary (point). The learned Judge's attention does not seem to have been drawn to the amendment made by this Court O. 41, r. 23, C. P C. as amended is as follows: Where an appellate Court has reversed a decree and all questions arising in the case have not been decided, if it thinks fit by order remand the case.... 3. There can be no doubt that the points raised by the plea of the Defendants in their written statements were not at all considered by the trial Court. The trial Court's judgment is contained in the following six words: Evidence recorded. Claim proved prima facie 4. Having struck off the defence of the Defendants, the trial Court could not consider their pleas. It being so, it cannot be said that all questions arising in the case have been decided. As a matter of fact, the questions which arose in the case from the written statement of the Defendants have not been considered at all and the remand of the case therefore comes under O. 41, r. 23, Civil Procedure Code, , and u/s 13 of the Court Fees Act the Applicants are entitled to refund of their Court fee. As a matter of fact, the questions which arose in the case from the written statement of the Defendants have not been considered at all and the remand of the case therefore comes under O. 41, r. 23, Civil Procedure Code, , and u/s 13 of the Court Fees Act the Applicants are entitled to refund of their Court fee. It is therefore ordered that the application be allowed and the case be sent back to the lower Court for granting a cer tificate to the Applicants authorising them to receive back from the Collector the court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. No order is made as to costs as no one appears to oppose the application.