Judgment 1. THIS raises a question as to the duty of the stamp Reporter with regard to his report on the filing of a Memorandum appeal in this court and consequent duty of the learned Registrar, Appellate Side, on the interpretation of the business of the judicial department, Appellate Side, High Court and Rules of Orders 41, 42 and 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the light of the prevailing practice and procedure, followed by the Stamp Reporter. The facts briefly are as follows: from an Original Decree and Judgment passed by Sri H. N. Sen, Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, the memorandum, giving rise to the above appeal, was filed in this court on November 19, 1962. On the back of the Memorandum after noting in rubber stamp the date of its presentation by the Stamp Reporter, the further rubber stamps to the following effect are put in "Stamp Sufficient (as per valuation) In time in form the 2nd Judge's copy of the papers not filed Stamp Reporter." 2. THE Stamp Reporter in the instant case not only reported on June 4, 1963 as "stamp sufficient" on the back of the Memorandum but tic marks was also given against items "in time" and "in form", signifying thereby that the appeal is not barred by time and is in proper order. That is his first report. On July 8, 1963, the Stamp Reporter placed the matter before the Registrar on giving a second report which has been recorded in the Order Book of the Appeal to the following effect: "please see Stamp Reporter's report dated 4. 6. 63. The Court No. of the presiding Judge in the trial court in the preamble to the grounds of appeal appears to be wrong. The L/adv. may be asked to correct it." I may state here that in the Memorandum of Appeal, the Third Bench of the City Civil Court is mentioned in the preamble, though the certified copy of the judgment and decree mentions the Bench as the eighth one of the said court. On the said report of the Stamp Reporter dated July 8, the Registrar, appellate Side of this Court passed an order on the 9th July, 1963, asking the learned Advocate to make necessary correction within one week. On the said report of the Stamp Reporter dated July 8, the Registrar, appellate Side of this Court passed an order on the 9th July, 1963, asking the learned Advocate to make necessary correction within one week. It appears further that on July 24, and August 13, 1963, there are two further reports of the Stamp Reporter, intimating that the necessary correction has not been carried out by the learned Advocate, in pursuance of which the Registrar placed the matter before the Division Bench 'for Orders' on August 14, 1963. 3. ON November 21, 1963, Banerjee, J. sitting with my learned brother called for an explanation from the office as to why the matter had been placed before the Bench as it did not appear from the Stamp Reporter's report dated June 4, 1963, indicated above that the number of the court of the presiding Judge was wrong. On November 23, 1963, the Stamp Reporter inter alia reported back as follows: "every appeal is examined by an Assistant of S. R.'s section to find out routine defects or clerical errors, if any, either in the memorandum of appeal or in other papers filed with it after the Stamp Reporter records his report on it on technical points re: Court-fees, limitation, form of appeal and the like and also after the court-fees thereon are duly punched. When such routine defects or clerical errors are noticed in any appeal by the Assistant concerned he draws up a report in that regard in the Order Book of the said appeal which, on being countersigned by the Stamp Reporter, is placed before the Registrar in Lawazima for appropriate orders. " In this case also, the same thing happened. 4. THE matter then came up on 4th December, 1963, before the Division Bench with the said report of the Stamp Reporter dated November 23, 1963, off which the court directed the Stamp Reporter to submit a further report, his earlier reports being not reconcilable. On December 11, 1963, the Stamp Reporter submitted inter alia another report as follows:- "the report recorded by me on 4. 6. 63 on the back of the memorandum of appeal was on broad points only, viz., Court-fees, limitation and form of appeal etc. On December 11, 1963, the Stamp Reporter submitted inter alia another report as follows:- "the report recorded by me on 4. 6. 63 on the back of the memorandum of appeal was on broad points only, viz., Court-fees, limitation and form of appeal etc. As the general requirements prescribed in the Appellate Side Rules and Order 41, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure re: proper form of an appeal were found to have been complied with, the appeal was passed by me as in form. In my humble opinion, the discrepancy in question was of a clerical nature and not a defect in regard to form and under that impression I passed the appeal in form. This discrepancy was subsequently noticed by an assistant of the section in course of examining the certified copies of papers filed, with reference to the memo, to find out any other defects, as is the usual practice and a report to that effect was drawn up and submitted to the Registrar in Lawazima under my signature." On this report my learned brother sitting with Justice Banerjee passed an order on December 13, 1963 directing the Registrar to look into the said explanation of the Stamp Reporter arid to report back on the arrangement alleged to exist in the office. The Stamp Reporter thereon submitted another report on December 14, 1963, which is as follows: "every appeal, cross-objection etc., on its presentation, is initially checked by the Stamp Reporter to see if it is properly stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Court Fees Act read with various rulings and case-laws of different High Courts particularly of the Calcutta High Court, is within time according to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act or any other special or local Act by which the appeal may be governed and is in form according to the requirements laid down in Rules 1-6 of Chap. V, Appellate Side Rules and as per the provisions of Or. 41, Rule 1 or Or. 42, Rule 1 of the C. P. C., as the case may be (vide the Rules of Business of the Judicial Deptt. at page 43rule 2, clause (c) sub-clause (VIII) as to the form of appeal. V, Appellate Side Rules and as per the provisions of Or. 41, Rule 1 or Or. 42, Rule 1 of the C. P. C., as the case may be (vide the Rules of Business of the Judicial Deptt. at page 43rule 2, clause (c) sub-clause (VIII) as to the form of appeal. If the appeal is found to be defective in any of these respects, an appropriate note is recorded in my report on the back of the memo of appeal. Otherwise, the appeal is generally passed as in order. After this report by S. R., the appeal file is sent to the Central filing Section for the purpose of punching of Court fees on the memo, vakalatnama and applications which may have been filed with the memo. The Stamps having been punched, the appeal file is made over by the Central Filing Section to the Officer-in-charge of the Deptt. for seeing that the stamps have been duly punched and defaced under the Rules and also for scrutinising 5 p. c. of the cases to see if proper Court-fees have been paid. After this is done, the file is returned to S. R. 's Section. At this stage, one of the assistants of S. R. 's Section examines the file to find out any other defects in the memo with reference to the certified copies of the judgment and decree filed or in the certified copies themselves including comparison of names of parties. If any defect is noticed by him, he draws up a report to that effect as also with regard to any other defect that may have been noticed by S. R. in his report at the back of the memo of appeal and submits the said report under S. R's signature to the Registrar in Lawazima for orders. In default of compliance with the Registrar's order, the matter is eventually placed before the Division Bench for appropriate orders under the direction of the! Registrar. When all these defects are rectified by the L/advocate concerned either under orders of the Registrar or of the Division Bench, the appeal is made ready for registration. At this time, the appeal is finally certified by S. R. to be in form and ready for registration. Registrar. When all these defects are rectified by the L/advocate concerned either under orders of the Registrar or of the Division Bench, the appeal is made ready for registration. At this time, the appeal is finally certified by S. R. to be in form and ready for registration. With this certificate (which is recorded in the Order Book by memo of a rubber stamp) the appeal is made over to the section concerned for registration and for taking other consequential steps. From the above it will appear that the appeal is passed by S. R. as in form twice first, initially at the time of S. R. 's report on the memo of appeal and next, finally at the time of sending the file to the section concerned for registration. In the initial stage, it is noticed whether the general requirements laid down in the A. S. Rules and/or the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been duly complied with and in the latter stage, it is noticed whether the appeal is free from all defects including the ones initially reported by S. R. on the memorandum of appeal. 5. IN fine, I may add here that I have been accustomed to this procedure ever since my under study-ship days which continued for about 8 years before my appointment to the present post in late 1961. This arrangement, I may humbly submit, has been in vogue for a long time. In this connection, three precedents are put up below, which will speak for themselves. (1) F. A. No. 3 of 1948 (2) S. M. A. No. 118 of 1951 (3) S. A. No. 629 of 1955. J. P. Majumdar, 14. 12. 63. STAMP REPORTER. " thereafter the Registrar after a long summary of the above reports of the Stamp Reporter and after asserting that he had personally examined the said three precedents, concluded, as follows: "I have examined these precedents. F. A. 3 of 1948 shows that Stamp Reporter passed the appeal as being in form on 27. 8. 47 and that subsequently some defects were reported to Registrar and after these were removed, the appeal was finally certified as being in form by putting the rubber stamp impression in the order book under date 22.12.47. F. A. 3 of 1948 shows that Stamp Reporter passed the appeal as being in form on 27. 8. 47 and that subsequently some defects were reported to Registrar and after these were removed, the appeal was finally certified as being in form by putting the rubber stamp impression in the order book under date 22.12.47. S.M.A. 118 of 1961 shows that Stamp Reporter made an endorsement on 24.7.51 on the reverse of the memorandum of appeal mentioning some defects. On 26.7 51 further defect along with the defect reported by Stamp Reporter was reported to Registrar and after these were removed, the appeal was finally certified as being in form by putting the rubber Stamp impression in the order book under date 21. 11. 51. S. A. 629 of 1955 it was passed by Stamp Reporter on 20. 12. 54 as being in form ; on that very day some defects including one relating to discrepancy between name of respondent No. 1 as in the memo of appeal and that in the certified copy of the court of appeal below were reported to Registrar. " 6. AFTER the discrepancy was reconciled, rubber stamp impression about appeal being in form was put in the order book under date 14. 2. 55. On a consideration of the detailed explanation of the Stamp Reporter, the relevant rules and precedents I am to report that arrangement alleged by Stamp Reporter in his report dated 11. 12. 63 follows usual practice in the office. H.N. Sen, registrar, A.S. 3.1.64 to complete the narration of the Stamp Reporter, the so-called final certificate, which is recorded in the Order Book by means of a rubber stamp, runs as follows: "appeal now in form. Register and Issue usual notices at once" as to the law on the subject, Or. 41, r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as to the form of the appeal, papers to accompany the memorandum and its contents in the case of appeals from Original Decrees Or. 42, r. 1 (wholly substituted by Calcutta) dealing with appeals from appellate decrees and Or. 43, r. 2 dealing with appeals from orders, make the provisions of Or. 41, applicable, so far as may be, to such appeals. Of the Appellate Side Rules, Chapter V provides general rules of procedure. 42, r. 1 (wholly substituted by Calcutta) dealing with appeals from appellate decrees and Or. 43, r. 2 dealing with appeals from orders, make the provisions of Or. 41, applicable, so far as may be, to such appeals. Of the Appellate Side Rules, Chapter V provides general rules of procedure. Rule 2 thereof besides containing the direction as to the appeal being drawn up in the manner prescribed by Or. 41, r. 1 of the Code lays down, what particulars, the memorandum of appeal is to contain, viz., nature of the appeal, names and addresses of the parties, particulars of the Courts below, particulars of the suit or proceeding, the grounds numbered in seriatim and the value. Copies of the judgment and the decree are required to be accompanied under Rule 6. Rule 10 provides whether the memorandum is to be treated in proper form in the absence of the said papers. Rule 13 provides inter alia that no memorandum of appeal shall be presented for admission unless the same bears an office report as to limitation of time and sufficiency of stamp, to be endorsed by the Stamp Reporter in the memorandum. Rules 14 and 17 make special provisions for the memoranda presented on the first day on which the High Court re-opens after the annual long vacation. Rules 18 (2), 21 and 22 deal with the insufficiency of the stamp on the memoranda. Rules 23 and 76 specify the other duties of the Stamp Reporter. Similar duties of the Stamp Reporter were prescribed in Rules 9 and 10 of Chapter VI of the said Rules with regard to the appeals to the Supreme Court and in Rule 3 of Chapter VIII of the said Rules with regard to the appeals under section 15 of the Letters Patent. They give sufficient indication as to when the memoranda or applications for leave are to be treated as in "proper form". Similarly Rule 4 of Chapter X lays down the duties of the Stamp Reporter as to when an application for review of judgment can be certified to be in 'due form. They give sufficient indication as to when the memoranda or applications for leave are to be treated as in "proper form". Similarly Rule 4 of Chapter X lays down the duties of the Stamp Reporter as to when an application for review of judgment can be certified to be in 'due form. Besides the general duties and powers of the Registrar given in Rule 2 of Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules, Rules 18 and 19 of Chapter XI clothes the Registrar with like duties of his endorsement as to whether or not the petition is 'in order' or 'in proper order' or 'in proper form', in the case of Criminal Appeals. 7. THE whole of Chapter IV of the Rules of Business of the Judicial Department Appellate Side, High Court, comprising 26 rules in number, deals with the function and duties of the Stamp Reporter, the main of such function being to examine memoranda of appeals with a view to seeing that such appeals are filed according to the requirements of the Appellate Side Rules, with the requisite court fees and within the prescribed period of limitation. The Stamp Reporter is further required under Rule 2 thereof to record a report dealing with (a) whether the appeal is in time (b) whether court fees are sufficient and whether the description of the appeal or other matter has been correctly given in the memorandum including the valuation and (c) whether the necessary copies of papers have been annexed to the memorandum and thereafter, whether the memorandum is in 'proper form'. Attention of the Stamp Reporter is drawn under the said Rule 2 to the provisions of Or. 41, r.-1 of the Code and Form No. 1, Appendix G and to the Rules of Chapter V of the Appellate Side Rules the relevant ones of which I have noted in the previous paragraph. Rules 6 and 7 of the Judicial Department Rules make provisions for defective appeals. Rule 11 of the same, lays down that if the memorandum is "within the prescribed time and is in proper form" and fulfils all the requirements of the law and the High Court Rules, the Stamp Reporter should record a note in the order book of the case and send it to the section concerned for registration. Rule 11 of the same, lays down that if the memorandum is "within the prescribed time and is in proper form" and fulfils all the requirements of the law and the High Court Rules, the Stamp Reporter should record a note in the order book of the case and send it to the section concerned for registration. The details of the duties of the General Assistant of the Stamp Reporter on the receipt of the memorandum are provided in Rules 23 to 26 of the said Chapter IV. 8. ON reading the said provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Rules of the Appellate Side and Rules of the Business of the Judicial Department, specially Rule 23, in Chapter IV re: the duties of the General Assistant in Stamp Reporter's section, I do not find any warrant for the report of the Stamp Reporter dated November 23, 1963 to say that the Assistant is to find out and report on "routine defects" or "clerical errors" and the points re; court fees, limitation, form of appeal and the like are merely "technical points" or "broad points" on which the Stamp Reporter records his report, (See S. R. 's reported dated 4.6.63. Though the Stamp Reporter is himself of the view that an appeal to be 'in form', must have to satisfy the requirements of the provisions of Or, 41, r. 1 of the Code and those of the Appellate Side Rules (vide his report dated 4th June, 1963 and in the last but one paragraph of his Report dated 14the December, 1963) still he concludes that the defect in giving the wrong number of the Court below is merely a defect of a 'clerical nature' and not a defect 'in regard to form'. The Stamp Reporter is, in my opinion, not correct as the Appellate Side Rules, specially Rule 2 read with Rules 10 and 13 of Chapter V thereof, enjoin the appellants to give the correct particulars of the courts below in the memorandum of appeal. It is unfortunate that the Stamp Reporter omits to take note of Rules 10 and 13 in Chapter V of the said Appellate Side Rules and limits himself only to Rules 1 to 6 thereof (vide his report dated 14.12.63) for the determination of the question as to whether an appeal is in form. In my view, all the Rule should be read together. In my view, all the Rule should be read together. 9. THE Stamp Reporter, after stating at length the procedure and practice followed by him and his Assistant, in his Report dated 14. 12. 63, said to be in vogue for a long time, had to admit that "the appeal is passed" by him "as in form", "twice", first "initially" on the Memo after the general requirements of the Code and the Appellate Side Rules are complied with but at that stage without looking into the defects in the memorandum compared with the judgment and the Decree of the courts below and even without checking the names of the parties to the appeal and secondly, the appeal is passed "as in form "finally" when the appeal is free from all defects". The appeal is made over to the section concerned for registration, after the same is passed finally, when the so-called final certificate in rubber stamp, quoted earlier, is put in. 10. THIS mode of passing the appeal 'in form' twice is not supported by any one of the said provisions of law. Then again, in the instant case there is no mention by the Stamp Reporter of his passing, the appeal in the qualified form such as, 'initially' in his Report dated June 4, 1963 but simply he reports as 'in form' which is very general, i.e., the appeal is passed as if being in complete order, without any limitation whatsoever ; which cannot but give an idea that the appeal is perfectly in accordance with the form. I understand the requirement of an appeal being 'in form' as one of the stringent measures. The obligation of the phrase 'in form' is so exigent that if it can be certified at all stages and even with the defects mentioned by the Stamp Reporter in his Reports, approved by the Registrar, in my view, it cannot be certified at' all. An appeal to be 'in form' must have the same meaning as to be in 'proper form' or in 'due form', i.e., it must reach the stage, ready for registration. An appeal to be 'in form' must have the same meaning as to be in 'proper form' or in 'due form', i.e., it must reach the stage, ready for registration. The rules made by this court are wholesome provisions guided by practical considerations; and in the absence of any statutory provision or any rule, it is in my opinion, neither proper for the Stamp Reporter to report as he purports to do in the instant case, i.e. passing the appeal twice as 'in form', which might lead to 'a great confusion. In dealing with the appeals, defectively filed under Or. 41 of the Code, it would not be altogether out of place to refer to some of the observations of Gajendragadkar, J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Supreme Court, in the case of Jagat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava, reported in (1961) 2 S. C. R. 918 (929, 930) A. I. R. (1961) S. C. 832 (837, 838): "the most important step to take in cases of defective presentation of appeals is that they should be carefully scrutinised at the initial stage soon after they are filed and the appellant required to remedy the defects" *** and at another place "appropriate orders must be passed at the initial stage soon after the appeal is presented in the appellate Court." The Registrar in his report dated 3rd January, 1964 affirmed the Stamp Reporter's reports and endorsed his view that the same is the usual practice in the office. But the rules of practice, in my judgment cannot and do not override the provisions of the Code, the Rules of the Appellate Side and Rules of Business of the Judicial Department. The rules of practice, or procedure of office routine, might be followed only in furtherance of or as supplementary to the said provisions but not otherwise. Now to deal with the three precedents, it appeared from the back of the memorandum of appeal in S. M. A. 118 of 1951, presented on 21. 7. 51, that the Stamp Reporter gave the initial report on the 24th July, 1951 as 'not in form' on the ground that the certified copy of the trial court's order had not been filed and the appeal had not been valued. 11. 7. 51, that the Stamp Reporter gave the initial report on the 24th July, 1951 as 'not in form' on the ground that the certified copy of the trial court's order had not been filed and the appeal had not been valued. 11. ON examination of the Order Book of the said appeal, it also appeared that on 21st November, 1951, there was a rubber stamp impression "appeal now in form. Register and post for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure". Those are correct reports. When the initial Report is that the appeal is "not in form", the subsequent or final report should be as "now in form etc." Same is the case in the other precedent cited, viz., S. A. 629 of 1955. The Stamp Reporter's initial report dated 14. 12. 54 in the said appeal, was again being 'not in form' and the attention was drawn to the said report in the office note, recorded in the Order Book in the said appeal dated 20th December, 1954. Thereafter when the defects were removed, as recorded on 14th February, 1955, the usual certificate followed as "appeal now in form". The appeal was thereafter registered and directed for posting for hearing under Order XLI. So far as the third precedent, namely, F. A. 3 of 1948 was concerned, it appeared that on the reverse of the memorandum of appeal the rubber stamp 'in time' and 'in form' was put and the Stamp Reporter signed thereunder on 27th August, 1947. Inspite of the above, a note was put up on the record on 12th September, 1947 pointing out that the status of the parties, as shown in the Memo, was not the same as those in 'the judgment of the court below. The learned Registrar, Sri K. C. Dasgupta (as his Lordship then was) allowed by Ms order dated 17. 12. 47 the appeal to proceed "in the present form", i. e., in the form as filed. Thereafter on December 22, 1947 the usual so-called final certificate in rubber stamp "appeal now in form" was put in, with the direction for registration of the appeal and for issue of usual notices. No standing orders except the said three precedents were referred to by the Registrar. 12. Thereafter on December 22, 1947 the usual so-called final certificate in rubber stamp "appeal now in form" was put in, with the direction for registration of the appeal and for issue of usual notices. No standing orders except the said three precedents were referred to by the Registrar. 12. BEFORE parting with this matter, I cannot but help recording, not without regret, that the learned Registrar, supposed to be a very responsible officer, inspite of direction by the court, neglected to do his duty in this particular case by not assisting the court. Banerjee, J. and my learned brother specially directed the Registrar on December 13, 1963 to look into the explanation of the Stamp Reporter and to ire-port back, to which he asserted on 3rd January, 1964 that he himself had examined the said three precedents. I am almost sure that he did not care to examine himself, even one of them but he merely relied on and dittoed the Reports of the Stamp Reporter and the office. In the so-called precedent of F. A. 3 of 1948, no defects were removed, as wrongly stated by the registrar and still the appeal was finally certified, as I have already stated. In SMA 118 of 1951, the initial endorsement of the Stamp Reporter dated 24. 7. 51 was that the appeal was 'not' in form, is not stated in the said Report of the Registrar dated 3. 1. 64. Similar is his report with respect to S. A. 629 of 1955. Never did the Stamp Reporter report on 20. 12. 54 in the said appeal, that it was 'in form', as asserted by the Registrar. Just to the contrary, it was reported by the Stamp Reporter as being "not in form" on 14. 12. 54. This again supports my said inference about the Registrar's failure to discharge Ms duties. In my opinion, none of the said three appeals can be treated as precedents on the point. Rather the first two, instead of supporting the views of the Registrar and the reports of the Stamp Reporter, go directly against them. I am sorry also to record that, that the Registrar's Report in this case, if not misleading, was anything but careful and responsible. Rather the first two, instead of supporting the views of the Registrar and the reports of the Stamp Reporter, go directly against them. I am sorry also to record that, that the Registrar's Report in this case, if not misleading, was anything but careful and responsible. His duties should not be taken to have been discharged and his responsibilities should not be taken to have been absolved by blindly following and dittoing the office reports, particularly when a Bench of this court inspite of successive Reports of the Stamp Reporter specially directed him to look into the matter and report book. The court is however saved from being misled but not without wasting a good part of its time and without any assistance from its officer, viz., the Registrar, Appellate Side, who in future is expected to restore the already heavily eroded position of the office he holds. I am also unable to give my approval to the so called practice referred to by the office which has no legal sanction. Chapter V of the Appellate Side Rules as well as Ch. IV of the Rules of Business of the Judicial Department are supplementary to the provisions of O. 41 of the Code and their object is to assist the court in determining whether the memorandum of appeal should be rejected or returned for amendment under r. 3 where it is defective or registered under r. 9 of the same Order. These provisions of the law leave no scope for the court to change its position at different stages, nor do they allow any 'room to the office of the court once to say that the appeal is 'in form' and, then, to say it is 'not in form' or to go on picking up ' holes one after another. 13. NO purpose would be served by stamping the memorandum as 'in form' where all the points have not yet been scrutinised, and it is sure to mislead because the initial report 'in form' also bears the signature of the Stamp Reporter. The only purpose behind any such practice is apparently to show that the scrutiny of the memorandum has been done as quickly as possible after the date of its presentation, which scrutiny is the responsibility of the Stamp Reporter and his office. The only purpose behind any such practice is apparently to show that the scrutiny of the memorandum has been done as quickly as possible after the date of its presentation, which scrutiny is the responsibility of the Stamp Reporter and his office. But that even the affixation of this rubber stamp is not done with any promptitude is evident from the fact that in the case before us, the Stamp Reporter took as much as nearly seven months to give his initial report 'in form' and the defect in question was reported one month thereafter. 14. BE that as it may, the law and the relevant Rules do not authorise the Stamp Reporter once to say that the memorandum is 'in form' and then to find out defects at a later stage. Of course, notwithstanding a careful scrutiny, there might be cases of oversight and this might subsequently be detected and pointed out, in exceptional cases, but it does not establish or Justify any 'practice'. If the Stamp Reporter is unable to record 'not in form' or 'in form' even within a period of six months of the presentation of the memorandum of appeal, it discloses a very hopeless state of affairs in the establishment of this highest tribunal of the State which has the responsibility of 'superintending' the working of the inferior courts in such and other matters. If, for a proper discharge of his duties, the Stamp Reporter is in need of additional staff or is obliged to work his staff overtime, that is an administrative matter for which he should approach his administrative superiors to take proper action in case they are satisfied that his requirements are justified, but with such matters we have nothing to do sitting here judicially. I conclude that the law and the Rules of Court on the point do not permit the Stamp Reporter to report that a memorandum is 'in form' without going through all the points calling for his scrutiny. 'he has only two alternatives open to him, that is, to report that the memorandum of appeal is either 'in form' or 'not in form', after a complete examination of all the points for which his office is responsible.