Bhandari, J - (1.) IN this civil miscellaneous appeal the office has reported that it has been filed on insufficient court fee of Rs. 2/- only while ad valorem court fee on Rs. 40000/- should have been paid. The appellant is the Punjab National Bank Ltd. which filed an application against the American INsurance Go. Ltd. , (hereinafter to be called the INsurance Company) and Messrs Ishardas Kaluram and others under sec. 18 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act,1951 in the court of the Civil Judge, Alwar with the allegations that certain goods belonging to respondents other than INsurance Company were insured with it for Rs. 40000/ -. These goods were lying at Lahore and were pledged with the appellant for more than Rs. 40000/- They were noticed in August, 1947. The appellant, therefore, claimed the sum of Rs. 40000/- from the INsurance Company. To this application the owners of the pledged insured goods were parties and they are respondents Nos. 2 to 7 in this appeal.
(2.) THE application was filed in the court of the Civil Judge, Alwar, as the owners of goods resided and carried on business at Alwar. The Insurance Company denied the claim on various grounds. The learned Civil Judge. Alwar framed several issues, one of which, issue No. 5 runs as follows - "were the insured goods looted by the rioters in the month of August, 1947, as alleged? - If so of what value? The learned Civil Judge was of opinion that there was no direct evidence of the looting and the burning of the goods. From the evidence on record it cannot be paid that the fact of looting was proved. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was not proved that the goods were looted and the issue was decided against the Bank. Other issues were decided in favour of the Bank, but the application was dismissed on the ground that issue No. 5 was decided against the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal under sec. 40 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951 to this Court. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the appeal is against the order of the Tribunal holding that the appellant was not entitled to file an application under sec. 18 of the Act as the loss to the appellant had not occurred in the circumstances mentioned under sec. 18 (l) and that order is not a decree or an order having the force of a decree and an appeal against that order can be filed on the fixed court fee of Rs. 2/- under schedule II Art. 11 of the Court Fees Act. On the side of the Insurance Company it is contended that the order of the Tribunal dismissing the application of the appellant under sec. 18 of the Act amounted to a decree or in any case an order having the force of the decree and the appellant should have paid ad valorem court fee as required under Schedule I, Art. 1 of the Court Fees Act. For the decision of this question the provision of sec. 18 of the Act are to be scrutinised. Sec 18 (1) of the Act runs as follows: - "where any property in West Pakistan belonging to a displaced person was insured with any Insurance Go. before the 15th day of August, 1947, against any risk arising out of fire or theft or riot and civil commotion and there has been a loss in respect of such property arising out of any such risk at a time when the contract of insurance was in force, such company shall not be entitled to refuse payment of the sum due under any claim on any of the ground mentioned in that clause. " Sec. 18 (2) is material for the purposes of the decision on the point and it runs as follows: - "where a loss has been incurred in respect of any property in the circumstances specified in sub-sec. (1), the Tribunal shall, in every proceeding where it is necessary to do so, determine respectively the amount of the loss, and the amount, if any, paid by the insurance company and shall make a report thereof to such board or other authority as may be prescribed, and the prescribed board or other authority shall, after taking into account such matters as may be prescribed as being relevant thereto and subject to any rules made in this behalf, in turn purpose to the Tribunal the amount for which the claim against the insurance company shall be decreed, and the Tribunal shall pass a decree accordingly. " The aforesaid provisions shows that the Tribunal under the Act has to submit a report to such Board or other authority as may be prescribed with regard to the points referred to in it in case a loss has been incurred in respect of any property in the circumstances specified in sub-sec. (1 ). The prescribed Board or the authority is to propose to the Tribunal the amount for which the claim against the Insurance Company is to be decreed and thereafter, the Tribunal is to pass the decree. From a perusal of the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, it appears that he was not satisfied that the loss in this case was incurred in the circumstances specified in sub-sec. (1) that is because of fire or theft or riot or civil commotion. He, therefore, did not think it necessary to make any report to the Insurance Claims Board. The application was thrown out on the ground that the case of the appellant did not fulfil the requirement that the loss to it was incurred in the circumstances specified in sub-sec. (1) and it was, therefore, not entitled to prosecute the application under sec. 18 of the Act. As no report was made, the stage for passing the decree was not reached. The order of dismissal of the application was on a preliminary point. The order was not passed after making a report to the Insurance Claims Board and after receiving their proposal. It cannot, therefore, be said that any decree passed in this case under sec. 18 of the Act. Under the Act there are no provisions that particular orders passed shall have the force of the decree. On an analysis of sec. 18 (2), it cannot be said that the order under appeal passed by the learned Civil Judge, is a decree or order having the force of a decree. The appellant was, therefore, not liable to pay ad valorem court fee as required under schedule 1 Art. 1 of the Court Fees Act. He could, therefore, prefer an appeal on a fixed court fee as required in schedule II Art. 11 of the Act. There is a Full Bench case of this Court in the Case of the Punjab National Bonk Ltd. Delhi vs. Firm Isardas Kaluram (C. F. A. 12 of 1956) decided on the 26th of September, 1956 in which it has been held that 'where an application under sec. 10 is rejected on the ground that the applicant is not a displaced person, the order does not amount to a decree, and ad valorem court fee cannot be paid, and the appeal can be filed with the court fee provided in schedule II, Art. 11 of the Court Fees Act. " In that case while discussing the provisions of sec. 11 of the Act it was observed that the final order passed by the court dismissing the application on the ground that the creditor was not a displaced person and could not make an application under sec. 10, was not a decree. It is only when the final order is strictly in accordance with what is provided in sec. 11 (2) that it can amount to a decree. The same considerations are present while discussing the provisions of sec. 18. The Tribunal is competent to pass a decree only after submitting a report to the Insurance Claims Board and after receiving their proposal. If this is not done and the application is rejected on the ground that the loss did not take place in the circumstances specified in sec. 18 (l) that order cannot be said to be a decree. The reasoning of the Full Bench case with regard to sec. 11 (2) is applicable to the present case which is under sec. 18. In our opinion the appellant is entitled to file an appeal on a court fee stamp of Rs. 2/- and is not liable to pay ad valorem court fee. The Court fee already paid is sufficient. Let further proceedings be taken. .;