JUDGMENT Kaul, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal u/s 6A of the Court Fees Act against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge; Rae Bareli. The material facts are shortly stated. 2. On the 11th of September, 1943, Mst. Sabraj Koer made an application in the Court of the Civil Judge, Rae Bareli, for redemption of a mortgage. Her application purported to be u/s 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act and Section 7 of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act.(A court- fee of Re. 1 was paid thereon. Of the two opposite- parties Aharwadin and Rampal Singh only the latter put in appearance and contested the case. Among other pleas it was urged on his behalf that the applicant should pay ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 15,000 the principal sum secured by the mortgage sought to be redeemed. This contention was upheld by the learned Civil Judge and he ordered that Sabraj Koer should make good the deficiency in court-fee within ten days. The present appeal has been preferred against this order. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the Assistant Government Advocate to whom notice of the appeal was issued, I am of opinion that the order of the-lower Court should be set aside. 3. The question that arises for consideration is what was the true character of the document presented to the Court on behalf of Sabraj Koer on 11th of November, 1943, by which the proceedings for redemption were initiated. Was it an application u/s 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act or a plaint in a suit as contemplated by Section 7 of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act ? It is described by Sabraj Koer as an application u/s 12 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act and Section 7 of the U. P. Debt Redemption .Act. Though it does not con- form strictly with the rule made u/s 12 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act by the Local Government for making an application under that section, it gives all the particulars required by that rule and in addition devotes two paragraphs (paragraphs 7 and 8) one to stating the cause of action and when it arose, and the other giving the value of the claim for the purpose of jurisdiction and explaining why a court-fee of Re. 1 only was paid. 1 only was paid. These particulars are not required by the rule framed u/s 12 and ordinarily are appropriate only for a plaint in a suit. It may, however, be pointed out that the appellant definitely stated at two places, in this document that it was an application. At only one place does she refer to herself as plaintiff and at six places in the body of the document she calls herself an applicant. Can it be said on these facts that the document by which the proceedings were initiated could not be treated as an application under' Section 12 of the Agriculturists' Belief Act but must be held to be a plaint u/s 7 of the Debt Redemption Act. 4. The question of court-fee has to be determined upon the true character of the document presented to Court on behalf of Sabraj Koer on 11th of September, 1943, whether it was an application or a plaint The learned Civil Judge begins his judgment by stating that Sabraj Koer "has (filed this suit for redemption". A suit as provided by Section 26 of the CPC is instituted by a plaint. Though the last words of this section suggest that a suit may also be instituted "in such other manner as may be prescribed" no rules have been framed prescribing any other manner of instituting suits (see also Order IV rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The learned Judge instead of deciding the question that arose for determination assumed that Sabraj Koer had instituted a suit and it followed therefore that the document presented by her on the 11th of September, 1943, for initiating proceedings for redemption was a plaint chargeable with ad vaiofem court-lee on the amount of the principal sum secured. Reference was made by the learned Judge to the case of Chief Inspector of Stamps U. P. v. Dwarka Prasad 1943 OA 310 : AWR (CC) 178 : OWN 473 for the view taken by him. That decision has no application td the facts of the present case. Reference was made by the learned Judge to the case of Chief Inspector of Stamps U. P. v. Dwarka Prasad 1943 OA 310 : AWR (CC) 178 : OWN 473 for the view taken by him. That decision has no application td the facts of the present case. That was admittedly a suit for accounts brought "under Sections 7 and 9" of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act and the only question which arose for decision was whether the plaintiff who was an agriculturist could on that ground take advantage of the provisions of Section 33 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act and pay the specially reduced court-fee provided by that section. Naturally no reference was made to Section 12 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act in that' case and it was not considered. 5. It is true that Sabraj Koer made a reference to Section 7 of the Debt Redemption Act also in her application which can by no means be called an artistically drafted document. But that could not convert an application u/s 12 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act into a plaint in a - , suit u/s 7 of the Debt Redemption Act. The reference to Section 7 of the Debt Redemption Act was made just to indicate that Sabraj koer claimed the benefit of the provisions of that Act also. The learned Civil Judge was of opinion that the provisions of Debt Redemption Act did not apply to an application u/s 12 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act," and as Sabraj Koer claimed the benefit of that Act, her application must be regarded a plaint u/s 7 of the Act. There is no warrant in the provisions of the Debt Redemption Act for this view. 6. U. P. Debt Redemption Act applies not only to suits but also to all proceedings (Section 2 (17) relating to a loan as defined by Section 3 (9) of - the Act. Accordingly advantage of the provisions of Section 9 of that Act could be claimed by Sabraj Koer if she was an Agriculturist. In view of the definition of the expression "Suit to which this Act applies" contained in Section 2 (17), it is clear that the provisions of the Act are not limited in their application to suits or proceedings under Sections 7 or 8 of the Debt Redemption Act. In view of the definition of the expression "Suit to which this Act applies" contained in Section 2 (17), it is clear that the provisions of the Act are not limited in their application to suits or proceedings under Sections 7 or 8 of the Debt Redemption Act. They are of wider application and being part of the law of the province can be availed of by any agriculturist debtor as contemplated I by the said Act. 7. Section 12 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act provides for redemption of mortgages on applications made by agriculturist mortgagors. Section'33 of the said . Act contemplates a suit by-an agriculturist debtor for account of, money lent. In such a suit a decree for the amount found due can be passed on an application by the defendant creditor but not otherwise. This is a suit as distinct from a proceeding which expression more" appropriately describes the action taken u/s 12. Section 7 pf the Debt Redemption Act contemplates" suits for redemption and suits for accounts. Section 9 of the Act, however, is by virtue of Section 2 (17) applicable both to suits and proceedings relating to loans as defined by Section 2 (9); and a person who has incurred a loan as thus defined can claim advantage of that section irrespective of whether this is done in a suit or a proceeding. 8. The learned Civil Judge appears to have lost sight of Section 26 of the Agriculturists', Relief Act which bars a suit for redemption if that relief can be obtained by an application under Chapter III. It is further noteworthy that though certain sections of H. "P. Agriculturists' Relief Act were repealed by Section 27 of Debt Redemption Act, sections in Chapter III of the . former Act rem lined unaffected. It has been assumed for the decision of the question relating to court-fees: which arose in this appeal that Sabraj Koer fulfilled the conditions which could be title her to the benefit of the provisions of both these Acts. I have assumed for the purposes of this decision that she was an agriculturist within the meaning of that expression as used in either of the two Acts. I have assumed for the purposes of this decision that she was an agriculturist within the meaning of that expression as used in either of the two Acts. The mere fact that she referred to Section 7 of Debt Redemption Act in her application and added the paragraphs about cause of action and jurisdiction which were altogether out of place would not make her application a plaint. If the conclusion arrived at above with regard to the true character of the document presented on behalf of Sabraj Koer on the 11th of September, 1943, is correct, the court-fee paid is sufficient. This was not disputed. I wish lo make it clear that the present decision is given on the assumption that the application with which the learned Civil Judge was dealing was one contemplated by Section 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. 9. For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed and the order of the teamed Civil Judge is set aside. The case shall go back to the Court below with the direction that it should be disposed of in accordance .with law. No order as to costs.