Research › Browse › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

1962 DIGILAW 106 (ORI)

MAYADHAR MISRA v. UPENDRA KUMAR RAUT

1962-10-19

BARMAN

body1962
JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The question referred to me by the Taxing Officer (Registrar) for decision in this: Whether in a revision filed against an order in appeal whose valuation is different from the valuation of the suit, court-fees should be charged under Clause (d) of Article 1 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act on the value of the appeal or on the value of the suit. 2. The proceeding out of which this civil revision directly arises was an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Balasore who set aside in part the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Bhadrak and made an order for retrial and fresh decision. It is against the said order of retrial passed by the lower appellate court that this civil revision has been filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners herein. The Stamp Reporter of this Court raised an objection to the adequacy of the court-fees paid in the civil revision matter. According to him, as the valuation of the suit is more than Rs. 1000/-, court-fee of Rs. 15/- (including increased sur-charge) is payable on it, but only court-fee of Rs. 7.50 nP. has been paid by the Petitioners fixing the valuation of the revision at Rs. 450/- on the basis of the valuation of the appeal before the lower appellate court. 3. The relevant provisions of the Orissa Court-fees Act and Schedule thereto and the relevant Rules of this Court so far as material for the present purpose, are these: Schedule II, Article 1. Clause (d) as amended by Section 22 of the Orissa Court-Fees (Amendment) Act, 1939 (Act V of 1939) is this: An application or petition when presented to a High Court u/s 115 of the CPC for revision of an order: (a) when the value of the suit or proceedings to which the order relates does not exceed one thousand rupees.-Five rupees. (b) when the value of the suit or proceedings exceeds one thousand rupees.-Ten rupees. Section 2, Clause (ii) provides as follows: 2. In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. (b) when the value of the suit or proceedings exceeds one thousand rupees.-Ten rupees. Section 2, Clause (ii) provides as follows: 2. In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. x x x (ii) 'suit' includes an appeal from a decree except in Section 8-A. By the Orissa Court-Fees (Surcharge Amendment) Act (Orissa Act XX) of 1947 as amended by Act XVII of 1958 all fees leviable under the principal Act were increased by a surcharge at the rate specified in the Schedule annexed thereto. Chapter VII, Rule 3 of the Rules of this Court, Volume I (pages 17-18), so far as is material, provides that every' application for revision shall, immediately below the title, have endorsed on it...Revision...and shall state. x x x (h) Amount of the Court fee paid, the value of the appeal, and in the case of an application for revision, the value of the suit out of which the application arises. 4. The points, urged on behalf of the Petitioners, contending that they are liable to pay only Rs. 7.50 nP. and not Rs. 15/-, are these: Under Schedule II, Article I, Clause (d) as quoted above, the Petitioners in civil revision are to pay court fee of Rs. 7.50 nP. only because the value of the appeal out of which the civil revision arises was only Rs. 350/-. In support of this proposition the Petitioners rely on the provisions of Section 2, Clause (ii) quoted above providing that 'suit' includes an 'appeal'. It is further contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the practice of the High Court to realise court-fees on the valuation of the suit out of which the civil revision arises as per Rule 3, Clause (h), of the High Court Rules quoted above, is irregular because the rules cannot override the statutory provisions of the Court-Fees Act. By virtue of the Act 'suit' includes 'appeal'. By virtue of the Act 'suit' includes 'appeal'. It was argued on authority that the word 'includes' is used in interpretation clauses where it is intended that while the term defined should retain its ordinary meaning, its scope should be widened by specific enumeration of certain matters which its ordinary meaning mayor may not comprise so as to make the definition enumerative, and not exhaustive, and who it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. The Court-Fees Act being a taxing statute, if there is any ambiguity about it, should be construed in favour of the subject. The Petitioners' point is that if two interpretations are possible, then the one in their favour should be accepted. The Petitioners submitted that the amount of court-fee payable should relate to the relief that is claimed in the revision petition against the order of the lower appellate court in appeal which was valued at Rs. 4501; that there is no justice or equity for the court demanding court-fee on the entire valuation of the suit, and that accordingly the Petitioners be allowed to pay Rs. 7.50 nP. only. 5. These arguments, on behalf of the Petitioners-seeking to pay les court-fees on the basis of the value of the appeal were successfully repelled by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Advocate-General for the, State. The points pressed on behalf of the State are these: The definition of the word 'suit' in Section 2, Clause (ii) as quoted above has to be read subject to the overriding clause in the section itself, namely: unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. In the present context, the word 'suit' in Schedule II, Article 1, Clause (d) quoted above can never mean 'appeal'. The civil revision, in the present case, has been filed against an order passed in appeal as aforesaid, and the appellate order relates to a suit, the valuation of which is above Rs. 10001. If, however, the language of Schedule II, Article 1, Clause (d)(a) quoted above, was to the following effect "when the value of the suit or proceedings in which the order is passed does not exceed...."then the Petitioners' contention might have some substance. 10001. If, however, the language of Schedule II, Article 1, Clause (d)(a) quoted above, was to the following effect "when the value of the suit or proceedings in which the order is passed does not exceed...."then the Petitioners' contention might have some substance. But the Petitioners' interpretation is not acceptable in the teeth of the language of the statute as it stands. 6. In the ultimate analysis, it is clear that in all cases of civil revision whether against an original order or appellate order they have to be valued for the purpose of court-fee according to the value of the suit and not on the value of the appeal. If the Petitioners' contention is to be accepted, then there would have to be two bases of valuation of a civil revision petition, namely one on the value of the suit for civil revision against an original order of the trial court and another basis on the valuation of the appeal for civil revision against an appellate order of the lower appellate court as in the present case. This could not have been the intention of the Legislature. 7. That apart, if the word 'suit' is substituted by the word 'appeal' in Schedule II, Article 1(d)(a) quoted above, then the words "to which the order relates" becomes meaningless. If indeed the Legislature so intended, as the Petitioners contend then the language of clause in the Schedule would have been yarded differently. If the expression "to which the order relates" is kept in view, then the Petitioners' points lose their force. In fact, there is no room for two alternative interpretations. Rule 3(h) of the High Court Rules quoted above providing that every application for revision shall state the value of the suit out of which the application arises" is consistent with the interpretation given on behalf of the State by reference to the provisions of the statute quoted above. 8. The words "to which the order relates" in Schedule II, Article 1(d)(a) are significant and decisive. When a revision petition is presented in the High Court whether against the original order of the trial court against an appellate order of the lower appellate court-the question to be considered is: What is the value of the suit or the main proceeding wherein the order was made? When a revision petition is presented in the High Court whether against the original order of the trial court against an appellate order of the lower appellate court-the question to be considered is: What is the value of the suit or the main proceeding wherein the order was made? The expression "to which the order relates" has reference to the suit or main proceeding and not to an application in the suit or in the main proceeding or to an appeal from any order made in the suit or the main proceeding on which the order, which is sought to be revised, was passed. I am of the opinion that the proper stamp duty that is leviable on the revision petition in question is Rs. 15/- and not Rs. 7.50 nP. The Petitioners are accordingly directed to pay an additional court-fee of Rs. 7.50 nP. With in two weeks from today. The reference is answered accordingly. Reference answered accordingly.