JUDGMENT Ameer Ali, J. - On Friday last when this plaint was presented to me for admission, it was mentioned that the punching officer had refused to punch the stamp. I directed enquiries to be made but before I could get any report in the matter, Mr. Leslie on Saturday last informed me that he had received a communication from the Registrar asking the attorney on the record to place on paper the circumstances connected with the matter so as to enable him to direct the punching officer to punch the stamp. Mr. Leslie also informed me that he considered the communication implied a matter of special indulgence to him and he therefore refused to give effect to it and wanted to have what he considers he was entitled to. 2. I therefore, called for a report from the Registrar as well as from the Second Assistant Registrar which have been submitted to me and having considered them together with the rules on the subject, I think the punching officer acted perfectly rightly in refusing to punch the stamps. 3. As there seems to be an impression on the part of some of the practitioners that the office downstairs unnecessarily delays these matters, I deem it necessary to place on record my views on the subject. 4. It will be remembered that the Court-fees Act came into force in 1870. At that time different court-fees stamps were introduced. In 1883, in consequence of some malpractice discovered in connection with the court-fees stamps on the part of the punching officer in collusion with others, Government framed certain rules which are printed in the Court-fees manual and which are also to be found in manuscript in the Registrar's Office. Government at the same time altered the form of the stamps. From that time the punching officer is required to discharge his duties in strict accordance with the rules. In case of any special circumstance the matter has to be placed before the Registrar who after consideration gives the necessary orders to the punching officer. 5. Sec. 28 of Act VII of 1870 declares: No document which ought to bear a stamp under this Act shall be of any validity unless and until it is properly stamped;" and sec. In case of any special circumstance the matter has to be placed before the Registrar who after consideration gives the necessary orders to the punching officer. 5. Sec. 28 of Act VII of 1870 declares: No document which ought to bear a stamp under this Act shall be of any validity unless and until it is properly stamped;" and sec. 30 provides : No document requiring a stamp under this Act shall be filed or acted upon in any proceeding in any Court or office until the stamp has been cancelled. Such officer as the Court or the head of the office may from time to time appoint shall, on receiving any such document, forthwith effect such cancellation by punching out the figurehead so as to leave the amount designated on the stamp untouched, and the part removed by punching shall be burnt or otherwise destroyed. 6. Rule No. 7 says : A document stamped otherwise than in accordance with the preceding rules is not properly stamped within the meaning of sec. 28 of the Court-fees Act, 1870. 7. It has been mentioned to me by Mr. Leslie that attorneys are in the habit of accommodating each other with stamps purchased. This may be convenient to the different parties, but if effect is given to that practice it may lead to the same laxity which gave rise to the case referred to above. If a subordinate officer finds attorneys accommodating each other, nothing is easier for him than to act in a way which may lead to a great deal of fraud afterwards. Under Rule 5 it is required : "When a single stamp of the required value under the last two rules is not available in stock, a certificate to that effect shall be given by the Collector of the district or officer in charge of the Sudder or Sub-Divisional Treasury : provided that when the fee chargeable does not exceed Rs. 50, such certificate may also be given by a licensed vendor of court-fee stamps. The certificate referred to must be affixed to the document and filed with it." 8. In the present case the stamp required for the plaint was of the value of Rs. 17. 9. The plaint bears an impressed stamp of Rs. 15, and an adhesive stamp of Rs. 2 is affixed to it. 10. The stamp for Rs. The certificate referred to must be affixed to the document and filed with it." 8. In the present case the stamp required for the plaint was of the value of Rs. 17. 9. The plaint bears an impressed stamp of Rs. 15, and an adhesive stamp of Rs. 2 is affixed to it. 10. The stamp for Rs. 15 according to the note on the back as required by the rules is in the name of Leslie and Hinds, the adhesive stamp is in the name of Hinds. The date of the 2 purchases are different. 11. The punching officer saw the difficulty and having the rules before him refused to punch and he was justified in so doing. The matter was brought to the Registrar's notice and he asked for a letter stating the circumstances so that they might be on record. The attorney instead of complying with that intimation and thinking it implied an indulgence chose to refuse it. 12. The rules of Government must be given effect to. One can easily imagine if the practice is lax and the rules are not enforced what the difficulties would be. The reports will remain on the record and the plaint will be returned for the purpose of compliance with the rule.