Judgment. - This is a defts first appeal against the judgment and final decree for sale under o. 34, R. 5, Civil P C., dated 17-3-1950, passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge of Kasumpti. 2. On foot of a simple mtge. dated 23-5-1935, executed by the applt., Pritam Singh in favour of Jagannath, deceased father of the pltf.-resp. Khushi Lal, for Rs. 2,000 the pltf filed a suit in the Ct. of the Dist. J. of Theog. Relief was claimed against Pritam Singh and his firm styled as Katar Singh Gurbans Das. The pltf. also impleaded his two brothers, Bakshi Ram and Roshan Lal, as pro forma defts on the ground that under a will made by his father he alone was entitled to sue on foot of the mtge.-deed. 3. A preliminary decree under O. 34, R. 4, was passed by the Dist. J. of Theog on 15-1-1947. The present deft. went up in appeal to the Chief Judicial Officer which was dismissed on 17-7-1917. He then filed a second appeal before the Judicial Commitee which was also dismissed on 8-6-1948 Thereafter the pltf. applied to the Senior Subordinate Judge of Kasumpti on 18-3-1949 far a final decree. That appln. was dismissed for default on 30-4-1949. The pltf. then filed a second appln. for final decree in the Ct. of the Dist. J. of Mahasu on 5-6-1949. The Dist. J. transferred that appln. to the Senior Subordinate Judge of Kasumpti, who passed the final decree dated 17-3-1950 against which the present appeal has been filed by the deft. 4. There were three preliminary objections taken by the learned counsel for the plft.-resp. that the appeal is not cognizable by this Ct. but should have been filed before the Judicial Committee, that the c.-f paid is insufficient and that the appeal is time barred. In view of the provisions of S. 6, Court-fees Act, the question of proper c.-f. payable should be taken up and decided before the appeal is heard on the merits. Muneshwar v. Har Prasad, A.i.r (32) 1945 Oudh 207 : (1945 AW.r. C. C. 85) I shall, therefore, take up the second objection relating to c.-f. first of all. 5. Ad valorem c.-f. under Sch. I, Art. 1. Court-fees Act, was paid by the deft, applt. on his appeal from the preliminary decree. Muneshwar v. Har Prasad, A.i.r (32) 1945 Oudh 207 : (1945 AW.r. C. C. 85) I shall, therefore, take up the second objection relating to c.-f. first of all. 5. Ad valorem c.-f. under Sch. I, Art. 1. Court-fees Act, was paid by the deft, applt. on his appeal from the preliminary decree. It is, therefore, contended on his behalf that further ad valorem c.-f. is not payable by him on his appeal from the final decree. Accordingly, he has paid a fixed c.-f. of Rs. 4 on the memo. of the present appeal. It was urged by the learned counsel for the deft.-applt. that the only grounds on which he is challenging the final decree passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge of Kasumpti are : (1) that that Ct. had no jurisdiction to pass the decree and (2) that in accordance with Form No. 6 in Appen. D, sch. i, Civil P. C., the final decree should not contain the costs awarded in the preliminary decree. He, therefore, contended that he was not in any way touching the preliminary decree and should not be made to pay ad valorem c.-f. twice over. In support of his argument he cited the ruling reported as Budhu Ram v. Niamat Rai, a. i. r. (10) 1923 Lah 632 : (4 Lah. 406). That was, however, a suit for redemption where in the appeal from the final decree the applt. had not contested anything beyond what was contested in the appeal from the preliminary decree and there was nothing Fresh for the Ct. to decide before it passed the final decree. That is not so here. In the present appeal the entire final decree is being challenged, and that on new grounds which have come into existence after the passing of the preliminary decree. That being so, the applt. must pay ad valorem c -f. under Sch. i, Art. 1, Court fees Act, on the entire amount for which the final decree has been passed. It would have been different had the present appeal been directed only against the amount in excess of that for which the preliminary decree was passed, in which case c.-f. would have been payable by the applt. on the amount in excess of that on which c.-f. had already been paid in the appeal from the preliminary decree. It would have been different had the present appeal been directed only against the amount in excess of that for which the preliminary decree was passed, in which case c.-f. would have been payable by the applt. on the amount in excess of that on which c.-f. had already been paid in the appeal from the preliminary decree. I am supported in this view by the decision of the Patna H. C. reported as Kausalya Devi v. Kauleshwar, a. I. r. (34) 1947 Pat. 113 : (25 Pat 305). The facts of that case were also similar to those of the present. The deft.applt. had paid ad valorem c.-f. in his appeal from the preliminary decree. He then filed an appeal from the final decree attacking the whole of that decree upon new grounds which had arisen between the passing of the preliminary and the final decrees. One of those grounds was that the final decree had been passed by a wrong Ct. Repelling the contentions that the applt. should not be made to pay ad valorem c.fs. twice over, and that if any c.-f. was payable it could only be on the difference between the valuations of the preliminary and final appeals, it was observed in that case as follows : I do not myself see the hardship. The c -f. is paid for the decision of Ct. C.-fs. have to be paid separately upon a first appeal and second appeal. If that is no hardship, why is it a hardship to pay separate c.fs. for two separate decisions upon separate points by the same Ct. The subject-matter of the two appeals is entirely different, and must necessarily be entirely different, since the same point cannot be agitated in the preliminary appeal and in the final appeal. It can only be in rare and exceptional cases that it will be possible to challenge the entire decree in the final appeal, since in the main the rights of the parties will have been determined in the preliminary appeal, and all that will be left for the final appeal in most cases will be subsidiary points, which do not involve a challenge to the entire decree, and consequently will not necessitate the payment of full ad valorem c.-fs, A case like the present is and must be unusual 6.I therefore hold, agreeing with the pltf. resp. resp. , that the c -f. paid on the memo. of the present appeal is insufficient, the proper c -f. payable being ad valorem c.-f. under sch. I, Art. 1, Court fees Act, on the amount for which final decree has been passed. 7. It seems that the applt. was under a bona fide mistake as to the amount of the c.-f. payable on the memo. of appeal. This is also apparent from the fact that the deft .applt has been contesting with some show of justification the correctness of the office report that the c.-f. paid by the applt. was insufficient. Nor was it argued on behalf of the pltf.-resp. that this was not a fit case in which the deft.-applt. should be allowed time under S. 149, Civil P. C., to make up the deficiency. The applt. wants and is given, time till 15-3-1951 for making up the above deficiency. The appeal will then be put up on 19-3-1951 for disposal of the remaining preliminary objections taken on behalf of the pltf.-refp. and, if necessary, for further arguments. Order accordingly.