( 1 ) KAMALADEVI named above has obtained a decree for Rs. 2,10,675-60p. against the Mahaboob Shahi Kulbarga Mills Ltd the appellant in RFA no. 75 of 1969. The trial Court granted two years time to the mills to pay the decree amount. ( 2 ) THE judgment-debtor, the mills, has presented the appeal questioning the merits of the trial Court's findings. The appeal of Kamaladevi, decree-holder, is limited to the direction for postponing the payment of the decree amount. ( 3 ) THE question of Court fee involved in her appeal is whether she is right in paying the fixed Court of Rs. 10 under Art. 3 (iii) (1) (a) of the second Schedule appended to the Mysore Court Fees and Suits Valuation act, 1958. ( 4 ) THE appellant Kamaladevi does not question in her grounds of appeal, the correctness of any of the findings of the trial Court on the merits of the case. The only substantial ground is that the direction of the Court granting time to the defendant is one made without jurisdiction and not consistent with the other findings on the merits of the case. Under the Article mentioned above, a Court fee of Rs. 10 has to be paid when an appeal is presented to the High Court in cases among others for which no provision is made in the Court Fees Act. ( 5 ) THE Registrar in the Note of Return suggests that a Court fee of rs. 200 is payable under Explanation 4 to S. 49 read with S. 47 of the court Fees Act. S. 49 deals with appeals. The principal rule laid down by it is that in normal circumstances Court fee for an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance, and then adds certain Explanations to provide for cases where the entire decree is not questioned in appeal but the challenge is limited to. certain parts thereof. certain parts thereof. Explanation 4 reads : where the relief prayed for in the appeal is different from the relief prayed for or refused in the Court of first instance, the fee payable in the appeal shall be the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the relief prayed for in the appeal ( 6 ) EXCEPT that the relief prayed for in the appeal is not the same as any of the reliefs prayed for in the trial Court, we find it difficult to see how this Explanation can be made applicable to this case. The grievance of the appellant arises not in respect of any relief that was or could have been valued while presenting the plaint itself. Actually, so far as the principal relief is concerned, the plaintiff is satisfied with the decree as made by the trial Court. ( 7 ) IN view of these peculiar circumstances, the proper view to take is that the appeal is one in respect of which there is no specific provision made in the Court Fees Act for computation of Court fee. ( 8 ) THE reference to S. 47 in the Registrar's Note is wrong. The only apparent justification therefor being the time granted by the trial Court and objected to by the appellant may be regarded as controlling to some extent execution proceedings. We are however clear in our mind that no considerations relating to execution can be brought into the discussion of proper Court fee payable in this case. ( 9 ) IN these circumstances, we accept the valuation made by the appellant as correct and hold that the Court fee already paid is sufficient. ( 10 ) THE Registrar will now proceed to number the appeal and issue notice to the respondents immediately and post the appeal on the very first date for hearing given in the said notice. ( 11 ) THE orders on I. A. No. I for early hearing of RFA. 75 of 1969 will be made after completion of service in the above appeal. --- *** --- .