Court Fee Reference No. 1 of 1950 v. . — 1952 DIGILAW 117 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. The District Judge of Anjikaimal made two references to this Court regarding the Court fee to be paid on applications for return of documents filed in court and on applications for copies of documents in court. The two references were consolidated into one and were heard by a Division Bench. As it was thought desirable to have an authoritative ruling on the questions raised in the two references the matter was referred to a Full Bench. 2. With regard to the levying of Court Fee on applications for return of documents from Court the practice in Travancore and Cochin areas of the State is not the same. Neither the Travancore Court Fees Act (Act VI of 1087) nor the Cochin Court Fees Act (Act II of 1080) which were repealed by Act II of 1125 contained any provision exempting applications for return of documents from petition fee. Schedule II, No. I(b), paragraph 2, of the Court Fees Act of Travancore provided for the payment of a court fee of eight annas on applications for petitions presented to a civil court which were not otherwise provided for in the Act, and Schedule II, No. 1(d) prescribed a fee of two rupees on applications presented to the High Court. The Cochin Act prescribed a fee of one rupee on applications presented to the High Court. Except for this difference the provision in the Cochin Act was similar to that of the Travancore Act. The present Act also contains the same provisions as those in the Travancore Act. Neither S.13 of the Travancore Act which exempted certain documents from payment of court fee nor the corresponding section of the Cochin Act (namely, S.18) included applications for return of documents from court. S.13 of the present Court Fees Act also which corresponds to S.13 of the repealed Travancore Act and S.18 of the repealed Cochin Act does not include such applications. But S.22 of the Travancore Act empowered the Government to reduce or remit all or any of the fees mentioned in the schedules annexed to the Act. S.32 of the Cochin Act also contained a similar provision. The corresponding provision in the present Court Fees Act is S.36. But S.22 of the Travancore Act empowered the Government to reduce or remit all or any of the fees mentioned in the schedules annexed to the Act. S.32 of the Cochin Act also contained a similar provision. The corresponding provision in the present Court Fees Act is S.36. In the exercise of the power conferred on the Government under S. 22 of the Travancore Court Fees Act a notification was issued by the Travancore Government on 25th January 1915 exempting from payment of court fee "applications made by persons, not being parties to the suit, for the return of documents and other articles produced by them in pursuance of an order of the court". The rule contained in this notification was embodied in the Travancore Civil Courts' Guide of 1922, as rule No. 344. The Civil Courts' Guide of 1944 which replaced the old Guide has embodied the same provision in R.617(1). The new Guide, however, embodied additional provisions in R. 605, sub-rr. 6, 7 and 8. They are to the following effect: "605 [6]. Taxed applications for return of documents are necessary only in the case of documents by which the return is demanded before disposal of suit. After disposal of the suit the parties are entitled to get back without a taxed application, such of the documents as can be returned. M. The following are the exceptions to the rule that all applications for return of documents before disposal of suit should be taxed. [8]. Shop books or other books of account in current use filed along with the plaint and accompanied by a copy of the entry on which the plaintiff reliefs. The court or any officer as it appoints in this behalf shall forthwith mark the document for the purpose of identification and after examining and verifying the copy with the original shall, if it is found correct, certify it to be so and return the book to the plaintiff and cause the copy to be filed. The point of time to which this applies is the filing of the suit. If an account book is filed for being exhibited during the trial of the case and if a party requires its return after it is exhibited and before the disposal of the suit, the general rule of a taxed application should be insisted upon. [ii]. The point of time to which this applies is the filing of the suit. If an account book is filed for being exhibited during the trial of the case and if a party requires its return after it is exhibited and before the disposal of the suit, the general rule of a taxed application should be insisted upon. [ii]. Any of the following group of documents admitted in evidence may be returned without a taxed application on the filing of copies of necessary entries or passages prepared at the instance of the party on whose behalf it is produced: [a] Letter books or books of accounts belonging to a party or a third person. [b] Documents produced by a Public Officer. [c] Documents sent for from other courts or public offices. [d] Documents produced by witnesses. [iii]. Documents rejected and documents produced but not tendered in evidence may be returned before disposal of suit without a taxed application. [8]. The following are exceptions to the rule that after disposal of suit documents should be returned without a taxed application: [i] Documents furnishing more causes of action than one. [ii] Documents which have to be retained by the party as for example when a suit is brought by the mortgagee on a usufructuary mortgage on the ground that possession is withheld and a decree is given to the plaintiff and he has to retain the document as a title deed during the continuance of the mortgage." 3.0 ne of the points for consideration is whether the Notification mentioned above ceased to be in force when the Travancore Court Fees Act, (Act VI of 1087) was repealed by Act II of 1125. No rules have been passed by Government under S. 36 of Act II of 1125 relating to the matters contained in the Notification. No rules have been passed by Government under S. 36 of Act II of 1125 relating to the matters contained in the Notification. Under S.23 of the General Clauses Act, Act VII of 1125: "Where any Act is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law, made or issued under the repealed Act shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted." The provision contained in the Notification dated 25.1.1915 cannot be said to be in any way inconsistent with any of the provisions of Act II of 1125 and it is also not provided in that Act that the Notification shall cease to be in force. It, is, therefore, clear that the Notification has not ceased to be in force by reason of the repeal of Act VI of 1087. By virtue of the provision contained in S. 3 of the United State of Travancore and Cochin Administration and Application of Laws, Act, 1125 (Act VI of 1125) the Notification mentioned above will continue to be in force in the Travancore area of the State. S. 3(1) reads thus: "Subject to the provisions of this Act and subject also to any alterations, amendments or repeals effected by the Legislature of the United State or other competent authority before the commencement of this Act, the existing laws of Travancore shall, until altered, amended or repealed by the Legislature of the United State or other competent authority, continue to be in force mutatis mutandis in that portion of the territories of the United State which before the appointed day formed the territory of the State of Travancore." Under S. 2(b) "existing law" shall include Rules and Notifications also. It will thus be seen that the Notification dated 25.1.1915 which is embodied in R. 617(1) of the Travancore Civil Courts' Guide is still in force in Travancore area of the State. According to that Notification applications made by persons who are not parties to the suit for return of documents produced by them in court are not liable to be taxed. According to that Notification applications made by persons who are not parties to the suit for return of documents produced by them in court are not liable to be taxed. The Notification does not exempt from the payment of court fee applications by parties to the suit for the return of documents. But even in the case of applications by parties to the suit R. 605, sub-rr. (6), (7) and (8) of the Civil Courts' Guide reproduced above make certain exceptions. Doubt may, however, be expressed as to whether the High Court had power to make rules relating to the payment of court fee. The only power conferred on the High Court to make rules under the Travancore Court Fees Act was that contained in S.14 of the Act relating to process fees. But the purport of the provisions contained in the rules mentioned above is that no application at all is necessary for a party to the suit to get back the documents produced by him after the disposal of the suit. This being purely a rule of practice it was certainly within the competence of the High Court to make rules relating to the same. The effect of the rule is that a mere memo would be sufficient for a party to the suit to get back, after the disposal of the suit, the documents produced by him in the suit. Even if a regular application is presented it will be treated as a memo and consequently it would not be liable to be taxed under the Court Fees Act. So far as the provisions contained in sub-r. 7 of R. 605 are concerned, they are exceptions to the rule that applications by parties to a suit for return of documents before disposal of the suit should be taxed. In the case of books and documents mentioned in that sub-rule it is provided that no taxed application is necessary. The purport of that sub-rule also is that no application is necessary for the return of documents mentioned therein. As in the case of applications for the return of documents after the disposal of the suit, applications for the return of ducuments mentioned in sub-r. 7 even before the disposal of the suit would be treated as mere memos and consequently not liable to be taxed. As in the case of applications for the return of documents after the disposal of the suit, applications for the return of ducuments mentioned in sub-r. 7 even before the disposal of the suit would be treated as mere memos and consequently not liable to be taxed. Sub-r. 8 contains certain exceptions to the rule that no taxed application is necessary even in the case of a party to the suit for the return of documents after the disposal of the suit. The provision contained in that Sub-rule does not contravene the Notification or any provision of the Court Fees Act. It has also to be noted that the rules contained in Civil Courts' Guide have received the sanction of the Government. It cannot therefore be said that the provisions contained in R. 605, Sub-rr. 6 to 8, of the Travancore Civil Courts' Guide relating to the payment of court fee on applications for return of documents have no force of law. In the result we hold that the Notification of the Travancore Government dated 25.1.1915 which is embodied in R. 617(1) of he Travancore Civil Courts' Guide and R. 605, Sub-rr. 6, 7 and 8 of the Guide constitute the law relating to the payment of court fee on applications for the return of documents from court so far as the Travancore area of the State is concerned. 4. So far as the Cochin area is concerned, a Notification was issued by the Diwan on the 7th July 1905 under S. 32 of the Act II of 1080 remitting "the fee chargeable on an application presented by any person for the return of a document filed by him in any court or office". This is embodied in R. 94(8) of the Cochin Civil Rules of Practice. By virtue of the provision contained in S. 23 of the General Clauses Act (Act VII of 1125) and in S. 4(1) of the United State of Travancore and Cochin Administration and Application of Laws Act (Act VI of 1125) this Notification must be held to be still in force so far as the Cochin area of the State is concerned. Therefore, the law in the Cochin area is that an application presented by any person, whether a party to the suit or not, for the return of documents produced by him in court, whether before or after the disposal of the suit is not liable to be taxed. It will thus be seen that the law relating to this matter is not the same in the Travancore area and in the Cochin area. It is a matter for the consideration of the State whether the law should not be made uniform in both the areas of the State. 5. The answer to the other question referred to the Full Bench, namely, the amount of court fee payable on an application for copies of more than one document, depends on the interpretation of Schedule II, No. I(a), paragraph 5, of the Court Fees Act (Act II of 1125) which is to the following effect: Table:#1 The same was the wording of the corresponding provision in the repealed Travancore Court Fees Act (Act VI of 1087) and in the Cochin Court Fees Act (Act II of 1080), the prescribed court fee being Chukrams two under the Travancore Act and one anna under the Cochin Act. It is argued for the State that the application mentioned in the schedule is an application for the copy of one document and not one for the copies of more than one document, and that an application for obtaining the copies of more that one document should be regarded as as many applications as there are documents of which copies are asked for and taxed accordingly. According to Mr. K. Rama Iyer who appeared as amicus curiae in this Reference and Mr. Madhavan Nair who appeared for the President of the Advocates' Association an application for obtaining the copies of more than one document should be regarded as one application only and taxed accordingly. They contend that according to the rule of interpretation contained in S.12(2) of the General Clauses Act (Act VII of 1125) the word "document" in the schedule includes the plural also. S.12 of the General Clauses Act provides thus: "12. In all Acts, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context - [1] words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and [2] words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa. 6. S.12 of the General Clauses Act provides thus: "12. In all Acts, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context - [1] words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and [2] words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa. 6. The Travancore Civil Courts' Guide of 1922 contained the following rules relating to application for copies of documents: 743. When a person is entitled to obtain a copy of a proceeding or document filed in, or in the custody of, the court, he may present an application therefore to the head ministerial officer in person. If the proceeding or document has been sent to another Court, the application may be endorsed and returned to him for presentation to the said Court, where it may be entertained without the levy of a fresh petition fee. 744. The application shall set out the name of the applicant, and his position in the suit or proceeding, and a description of the documents of which a copy is required; an application which is not in proper form shall be returned for amendment." The words "the documents of which a copy is required" in R. 744 would seem to indicate that the "application" mentioned in the rule includes an application for copies of more than one document. There has, however, been no uniform practice in the Courts of Travancore relating to the levying of court fee on an application for the copies of more than one document. In some courts such an application was regarded as as many applications as there were documents of which copies were required and taxed accordingly, while in other courts, it was regarded as one application only and taxed accordingly. The question came up for consideration before the Travancore High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Reference No. 2 of 1117 reported in 16 T.L.T. 867 (57 T.L.R. 1033). The High Court answered the reference in the following manner: "Regarding point No. 3, Schedule II[1] [a] prescribes a fee of chukrams 2 for an application for a copy or translation of any document or record. When copies of more than one document are, applied for, in cases where applications are taxable, as many prescribed stamps as there are documents of which copies are required, should be affixed to the application, to stamps to the aggregate value. When copies of more than one document are, applied for, in cases where applications are taxable, as many prescribed stamps as there are documents of which copies are required, should be affixed to the application, to stamps to the aggregate value. The rule is the same with regard to application for more than one copy of the same document. The rule should apply to depositions of witnesses also, as each deposition is a separate document on the record. Regarding petitions and affidavits accompanying them, these are to be treated as one document, where the affidavit furnishes the grounds for supporting the application. If the uniformity of practice desirable in the above matters is being broken in any court, such court will fall into line immediately". 7. R.532 of the new Civil Courts' Guide was drafted on the basis of this decision of the High Court. It reads thus: "532. An application for copy shall be taxed as provided for in Schedule II[1] [a] of the Court Fees Act, [Act VI of 1087]. When copies of more than one document are applied for in cases where applications are taxable, as many prescribed stamps as there are documents of which copies are required or stamps to the aggregate value should be affixed to the application. Similarly, separate fees should be levied for each deposition of witness and for each additional copy of the same document. Note [1]. Applications in small cause suits of the value of less than Rs. Fifty are not taxable. Vide S. 13(g) of the Court Fees Act. Note [2]. A petition and an affidavit accompanying it are to be together treated as one document, where the affidavit furnishes the grounds supporting the petition. Note [3]. The stamp fee payable on an urgent application for copy in Civil Suits of the value of less than Rs. Fifty would be chukrams 2. In civil suits of the value of Rs. Fifty and above such fee would be chs.14 in the subordinate courts and Rs. 2 in the High Court." 8. It will be seen that in 16 T.L.T. 867 there was no discussion of the point raised in the reference. There was no attempt by the learned judges who answered the reference to interpret the relevant provision of the Court Fees Act. No reasons whatever are given for the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judges. It will be seen that in 16 T.L.T. 867 there was no discussion of the point raised in the reference. There was no attempt by the learned judges who answered the reference to interpret the relevant provision of the Court Fees Act. No reasons whatever are given for the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judges. It may be that the learned judges were only particular that there should be uniformity of practice in the courts with regard to the question raised before them. This decision, therefore, affords no guide to us in answering the question raised in the reference. 9. So far as the Cochin area is concerned the question as to the amount of court fee to be paid on an application for copies of more than one document has not come up for consideration before the Cochin High Court and there is also no provision in the Cochin Civil Rules to Practice relating to the matter. It was argued by Mr. K. Rama Iyer that the wording of sub-rr. 6,10 and 11 of R. 83 of the Cochin Civil Rules of Practice would indicate that the application for a copy of document mentioned in Schedule II of the Court Fees Act includes an application for copies of more than one document. Sub-r. 6 prescribes the manner in which an application for copy of document should be presented. The words used are "application for a copy". Sub-r. 10 relates to the procedure to be adopted when an application for copy of document is presented. It is provided in that sub-rule that "it shall be the duty of the Examiner forthwith to forward the application with the register in Form No. 26 to the Clerk in charge of the records of which copies are applied for". Sub-r. (11) also relates to the procedure to be adopted by the Examiner. It provides that the Examiner "shall note on the application the estimated number of stamp papers of the value of two annas required for copying the document or documents". It is argued that the wording of the above rules indicates that the application mentioned in Schedule II of the Court Fees Act includes an application for copies of more than one document. We do not think that the wording of these rules can be relied on as a guide for interpreting the relevant provision of the Court Fees Act. It is argued that the wording of the above rules indicates that the application mentioned in Schedule II of the Court Fees Act includes an application for copies of more than one document. We do not think that the wording of these rules can be relied on as a guide for interpreting the relevant provision of the Court Fees Act. It was also brought to our notice that there is a Standing Order of the Government of Cochin relating to this question. Standing Order No. 197(2) relating to the Secretariat is to the following effect: "A separate application need not be presented in respect of each document of which an extract or a copy is required. The enclosures or annexures to the letters, accounts or other documents form part of the document to which they appertain, and are not to be reckoned as separate documents". It is not clear whether the application contemplated in this Standing Order is an application for copy of documents or whether it is one for search of documents. In any case this Standing Order also can be of no assistance to us in the matter of interpreting the relevant provision of the Court Fees Act. It is, however, seen that the uniform practice in the Cochin area is that an application for copies of more than one document is treated as one application and taxed accordingly and not as as many applications as there are documents of which copies are required. 10. The answer to the reference really depends upon the question whether the words "application for a copy of any document" can be interpreted to mean "application for copies of any documents". Court Fee is paid under the schedule not for the copies of documents, but for the application for the same. If, therefore, one application is sufficient for obtaining copies of more than one document, only the fee prescribed for such application, namely, one and a half annas, need be paid for that application. There is nothing in the Court Fees Act to show that the word "document" in the schedule should not be interpreted in the manner laid down in the General Clauses Act. In other words, there is nothing in the Court Fees Act which makes S. 12(2) of the General Clauses Act inapplicable to the interpretation of the word "document" in the schedule. In other words, there is nothing in the Court Fees Act which makes S. 12(2) of the General Clauses Act inapplicable to the interpretation of the word "document" in the schedule. It was argued by the learned Government Pleader that when more than one relief are claimed in an application court fee will have to be paid for all the reliefs as envisaged in S.11(1) of the Court Fees Act. That section reads thus: "II [1] Where a suit or appeal embraces two or more distinct subjects, the plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees to which the plaints or memoranda of appeal in the suits embracing separately each of such subjects would be liable under this Act. Nothing in the former part of this sub-section shall be deemed to affect the power conferred by 0.2, R.6 of the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure or the Cochin Code of Civil Procedure." But this section applies only to suits or appeals and not to applications (vide Upadhyaya Thakur v. Persadh Sing (ILR 23 Cal. 723), Dhanpatnal v. Labchand (AIR 1933 Sind 343) and Kamala Ranjan v. Abhoy Charan (AIR 1940 Cal. 84). In the absence of a provision in the Court Fees Act relating to applications similar to that contained in S. 11(1) relating to suits and appeals the question whether an application for obtaining more than one relief should be regarded as as many applications as there are reliefs asked for will depend upon the Rules of Practice governing the matter. If the reliefs are distinct in character the Rules of Practice insist on separate applications being filed by the parties. If one application contains two reliefs of different character the application will be regarded as two separate applications written on the same paper. If, for example, a party includes in one application a prayer for the appointment of a receiver and also for an attachment before judgment, the application will be regarded as two separate applications and court fee will have to be paid accordingly. But if the reliefs claimed are of the same character there is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure or in the Rules of Practice that insists on separate applications being filed. But if the reliefs claimed are of the same character there is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure or in the Rules of Practice that insists on separate applications being filed. For example, if a party wants steps to be issued to two witnesses in a case it is not necessary that two applications should be filed. Similarly, if two properties of the defendant are sought to be attached before judgment it is not necessary that the plaintiff should file two applications. When a party applies for copies of two documents in a case it cannot be said that the prayer in the application is for two distinct reliefs, and there is nothing either in the Code of Civil Procedure or in the Rules of Practice to prevent a party from making such a prayer in one application. So long as such an application is sanctioned by the Rules of Practice we see no reason why it should be regarded as two applications for purposes of court fee unless there is something in the Court Fees Act which says that such an application should be treated as two applications for purposes of court fee. We saw that the provision in S. II(1) of the Court Fees Act will not apply to applications. Even in a case of a suit or appeal the section will apply only when "the suit or appeal embraces two or more distinct subjects". 11. The further question for consideration whether the wording of Schedule II, No.1(a) paragraph 5, of the Court Fees Act leads to the inference that the application mentioned therein can be only an application for the copy of one document, or in other words, whether there is "anything repugnant in the subject or context" which precludes the application of the rule of interpretation contained in S. 12(2) of the General Clauses Act with regard to the word "document" mentioned in the schedule. Learned Government Pleader laid emphasis on the words "a copy" in the schedule and contended that the application mentioned in the schedule can apply only to one copy and not more. Learned Government Pleader laid emphasis on the words "a copy" in the schedule and contended that the application mentioned in the schedule can apply only to one copy and not more. But the words "a copy" will have to be taken along with the subsequent words, namely, "of any judgment, decree or order or of any other document or records." It is true that if two copies of any judgment, decree, order, document or record are asked for two applications will be necessary in view of the use of the words "a copy" in the schedule. But the same will not be the case if one copy each of two documents is asked for. The question really turns upon the meaning to be given to the words "any document" - whether they include the plural also. If the expression "any document" can be interpreted to mean "any document or documents" the application mentioned in the schedule may be for obtaining one copy each of more than one document. If the legislature intended to limit the application to the copy of one document alone it would have used appropriate words to make that intention clear and would not have used the words "any document." In the circumstances, the use of the words "a copy" in the schedule does not lead to the conclusion that the application mentioned therein can relate to the copy of one document only. It only indicates that not more than one copy of any one document can be asked for in one application. According to the rule of interpretation contained in the General Clauses Act the words "application for a copy of any document" must be interpreted to mean "application for the copies of any documents." Even if there can be a doubt with regard to the meaning of the language used in the schedule it is well settled rule of interpretation of statutes that in the case of statutes imposing taxes the interpretation most beneficial to the subject should be adopted (vide Maxwell - The Interpretation of Statutes, (1946 Ed., pp. 291 and 292) and Craies on Statute Law, (4th Edition, p. 110). 12. 291 and 292) and Craies on Statute Law, (4th Edition, p. 110). 12. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of opinion that for obtaining copies of more than one document in a case one application is sufficient and that the court fee required for such application, namely, one and a half annas only, need be paid by the applicant. If, however, the documents of which copies are applied for are documents in more than one case or proceeding the Rules of Practice require that separate applications should be filed for obtaining the copies. According the rules of practice every application will have to be filed in a particular suit or proceeding and registered accordingly. Therefore, for obtaining copies of documents in different suits or proceedings separate applications will have to be filed in each of the suits or proceedings. 13. Our answer, therefore, to the reference on the point is this: (1) An application for copies of more than one document in one suit or proceeding can be taxed only with the fee prescribed for one application, namely, one and a half annas. (2) If the documents of which copies are applied for are in more than one suit or proceeding separate applications will have to be filed in each of the suits or proceedings and each application will have to be taxed with a fee of one and half annas. (3) For obtaining more than one copy of one document separate applications will have to be filed for each copy and if one application is filed for the purpose it will be treated as as many applications as there are copies applies for and taxed accordingly. It may also be pointed out that the same principles will apply to applications for urgent copies also, such applications being taxed with the fee prescribed for urgent applications.