Judgment.- The vakil’s fee originally was fixed at Rs. 118. The suit was for Rs. 5,063 and was filed under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code. Subsequent to the decree an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff to amend the decree by adding Rs. 118 more towards the lawyer’s fee. Notice of that application was taken to the advocate for the defendant and as no counter-statement was filed on 7th July, 1949, the Court amended the decree as prayed for by the plaintiff. Then subsequently on 20th July, 1949, the Court suo motu vacated the order dated 7th July, 1949 and posted the case for hearing. On 26th July, 1949, the learned Judge passed an order as follows: “The vakil’s fee allowed is correct in view of Rule 37(f) read with 31(b) proviso. The order passed on 7th July, 1949, is not correct. This petition is dismissed”. In my opinion the learned Judge was in error. Rule 37(f). of the Legal Practitioners Rules prescribes for suits under Order XXXVII, Civil Procedure Code. Where leave to defend has not been granted, the fee shall be half the fee prescribed under rule 31(b) subject to a maximum of Rs. 500. The reference to rule 31(b) must be taken as a reference to the fees allowed in ordinary cases and does not, in my opinion, have reference to the special class of cases dealt with in the second proviso, viz., to suits which are decided ex parte the defendant not entering appearance or having entered appearance not contesting. Obviously, in a suit filed under Order XXXVII in which leave to defend had not been granted there is no question of defendant entering appearance. He is in fact precluded from doing so. So the proviso would not apply and what would apply is the specific provision contained in rule 37(f). The order of the learned Judge is set aside and his order, dated 7th July, 1949, is restored. K.S. ----- Petition allowed.