JUDGMENT 1. The Opposite Parties obtained a decree for Rs. 3,513-14 as. with costs against the Petitioners on the basis of a mortgage. The decree was passed in a suit to which the Bengal Money-Lenders Act of 1940 applies. Thereafter, the Petitioners made an application under sec. 36 of the said Act for relief to the Court which had passed the decree, namely, the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed that application and reduced the decretal amount to Rs. 2,367 and odd plus Rs. 462-10-6 pies as costs and allowed payment in certain installments. Against this order of the learned Subordinate Judge the Petitioners preferred an appeal. In the memorandum of appeal they took grounds to the effect that on accounting nothing would be due from them to the Opposite Parties and so the learned Subordinate Judge ought not to have passed a decree for any amount against them. They further complained that the order for installments was an erroneous order. This memorandum of appeal was stamped with a court-fee stamp of Re. 1. At the time of hearing, a preliminary objection was taken by the Opposite Parties, their contention being that the court-fees paid on the memorandum of appeal were insufficient. The Petitioners contended before the learned Additional District Judge that their appeal was really an appeal under sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Opposite parties, however, contended that the appeal ought to be an appeal against the modified decree and such court-fee as is required under the Court Fees Act of 1870 ought to be paid. The learned Additional District Judge overruled the contention of the Petitioners -and gave effect to the contention of the Opposite Parties by his order dated the 7th June, 1941. He thus observed in the concluding portion of his judgment I am of opinion that no appeal lies from the order. But as under the section the proceeding is treated as a suit and a new decree is passed, the aggrieved party will be at liberty to prefer an appeal against the decree. Thus the case is adjourned to 28th Jane, 1941, to give the appellant an opportunity to file the amended decree and contest the present appeal as an appeal from original decree by paying the court fees on the memo of. appeal on the value of the subject matter in dispute. Thus the case is adjourned to 28th Jane, 1941, to give the appellant an opportunity to file the amended decree and contest the present appeal as an appeal from original decree by paying the court fees on the memo of. appeal on the value of the subject matter in dispute. The view which the learned Additional District Judge took, namely, that the appeal would be an appeal against the amended decree has been accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Promode Nath Sinha Roy v. Sm. Raseshwari Dassi (1). As no rules have been made by the Local Government with regard to the court-fees payable on the memoranda of appeals filed against such orders made under sec. 36 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act as are appealable, the question of court-fees must be determined by the provisions of the Court Fees Act. If the subject-matter of the appeal can be valued, ad valorem court-fees will have to be paid under Schedule I, Article 1 of the Court Fees Act. If the subject-matter of the appeal cannot be valued, the fixed court-fee provided for in Sch. II, Art. 17, cl. (vi) will have to be paid. Whether the subject-matter of the appeal Can be valued or not depends upon the nature of the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal. This is our view and it receives support from the decision already mentioned, namely, Promode Nath Sinha Roy v. Sm. Raseshwari Dassi 45 C. W. N. 770 (1941). and a later decision of another Division Bench, Khitish Chandra Maitra v. Satish Chandra 46 C. W. N. 533 (1942). The learned Additional District Judge was, therefore, right. He gave the petitioners an opportunity to file the court-fee, but the Petitioners did not avail themselves of that opportunity with the result that on the 5th July, 1941, their appeal was dismissed. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners now offers to amend their memorandum of appeal by striking out all other grounds, save and except the ground relating to the legality of the order about installments and offers to pay a court-fee stamp of Rs. 15 payable under Art. 17, cl. (6) of the Court Fees Act. We cannot accede to that request at this stage. 15 payable under Art. 17, cl. (6) of the Court Fees Act. We cannot accede to that request at this stage. He ought to have made that offer before the learned Additional District Judge between the 7th June, 1944, when the question about the sufficiency of the court-fees was adjudicated by the learned Additional District Judge and 5th July, 1941, when the appeal was dismissed for non-payment of court-fees. For these reasons, we discharge this Rule with costs to the Opposite Parties. Hearing-fee, two gold mohurs.