JUDGMENT Madeley and Walford, JJ. - In this case the debtor applicants under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act tiled a revision before this Court against the dismissal of their application for the amendment of the decree. The case was referred | to a Bench and it was there discovered; that according to the most recent decisions of the Allahabad High Court (there appear to be none of this Court) an appear and not a revision lies. This decisions are Mohammad Abdul Razzak v. parvati Devi 1942 O.A. (Sup) 543 : A.W.R. (HC) 319 : RD 735, and Mst. Ketki Kunwar v. L. Ram Saroup 1942 O.A. (Sup) 593 : A.W.R. (H C) 340 : AIR 1942 All. 390, Both these decisions are based on the same ground. In Mohammad Abdul Razzak v. Parvati 1942 O.A. (Sup) 543 : A.W.R. (HC) 319 : RD 735 a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held, Apart from the fact that by Section 24 of the Debt Redemption Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, save in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of that Act, have been made applicable to all proceedings under that Act, an order refusing to amend a decree u/s 8 is clearly a matter relating to execution of discharge of the decree and falls within the purview of Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure. 2. It is therefore held that such an order is appeasable. 3. In view of this fact this Bench called upon the office to make a report about the court-fee, and the stamp officer reported that advalorem court-fee must be paid on Rs. 4,635-15, the amount of the decree. This report appears to be wrong. u/s 35 of the Court Fees Act it is provided that the Local Government may, from time to time by notification in the local official Gazette reduce or remit, in the whole or in any part of the territories under its administration, all or any of the fees mentioned in the first and second Schedules to this Act annexed, and, may in like manner, cancel or vary such order. This power was exercised by the Local Government in respect of orders amending decrees passed u/s 47 of the CPC under U. P. Government Notification No. 1231/VII-353 dated October 11, 1923, as amended by notification No. 1299/ X-497 dated 22nd March, 1932. In such appeals when presented to the Chief Court Rs. 5 is the fixed court-fee chargeable. This has subsequently been raised to Rs. 6-4 owing to the surcharge. We hold therefore, that Rs. 6-4 is the proper court-fee payable on this appeals. Rs. 4 has already been paid and Rs. 2-4 therefore remains to be made good. The Appellant's Learned Counsel asks for a fortnight's time. We grant him a fortnight's time to make up the deficiency.