Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 1146 (ALL)

STATE of U. P. v. Mahant Shiva Nand Giri

1991-09-06

M.P.SINGN

body1991
JUDGMENT M. P. Singh, J. 1. This is a Revision under Section 6B (1) of the court Fees Act filed by the Uttar Pradesh. (2)The plaintiffrespondent filed a suit for injunction praying that the defendants, their followers, servants and agents be restrained from interfering with the peaceful living, performing Puja, Rag, Bhog etc, at the Gaddi and administration of the properties. the suit related to : (i) House No. 1 Bahambari Road having the Baghambari Gaddi with Ahata and moveables dedicated to Gaddi; (ii) Temple and Dharmshala No. 992, Muthiganj, Allahabad. (iii) Temple Bam Hanumanji, 29 Beni Band, near Fort, Allahabad, and. (iv) Agricultural properties. 3. The defendants filed written statements. It was pointed out that the salt has not been properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient. This point was decided as preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC on 10111987 by tire trial court. It was held that the suit was properly valued and the court fee paid was sufficient. 4. Against this order the defendants filed Civil Revision No. 993 of 1987 in this Court, the plaintiff raised an objection, relying upon a decision reported in AlR 1961 SC 1299 sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla about the maintainability of the revision at the instance of the defendant. In the case it has been held that if the question of court fee has been decided by the trial court against the defendant then he has no right to file a revision. The matter of court fee was entirely between the plaintiff and the State Government. 5. The High Court did not decide the revision on merit. It was of the view that the matter of deficiency of court fee can be raised in appeal. It has not upheld the correctness of the order dated 10111987. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the revision filed against the order dated 10111987 has been dismissed, it amounts to affirming the said order. The submission is misconceived. The court while dismissing the revision has not said a word about the merit of the order. It has left the controversy alive between the parties. 7. When the finding of the trial court, on the question of issue No. 7, was communicated to the applicant, the matter was referred to the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps). He filed his objection on 18111987, after the file was inspected. It has left the controversy alive between the parties. 7. When the finding of the trial court, on the question of issue No. 7, was communicated to the applicant, the matter was referred to the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps). He filed his objection on 18111987, after the file was inspected. It was an objection under Section 6(3) of the Court Fee Act. According to him there was deficiency of Rs. 6,25,070.00 in payment of court fee, A recommendation was also made that the plaintiff be directed to make good the deficiency. 8. The trial court, without going into merits of the objection, has rejected the same on 2741988 by observing that this question has already been decided on 10111987. The said order was to be treated as part of the impugned order. There was no independent application of mind to the merit of that objection. The present revision is directed against the said order. 9. Heard Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State and Sri Faujdar Rai, for the plaintiffrespondent. 10. In order to appreciate the controversy in the instant case the provisions of Sections 6(3) and 6(4) of the Court Fee Act are to be looked into. They run as follows: Section 6(3) of the Court Fees Act provides that: 'If a question of deficiency in court fees in respect of any plaint or memorandum of appeal is raised by an officer mentioned in Section 24A the court shall, before proceeding further with the suit or appeal, record a finding whether the court fee paid is sufficient or not. If the court finds that the court fees paid is insufficient; it shall call upon the plaintiff or the appellant, as the case may be, to make good the deficiency within such time as it may fix, and in case of default shall reject the plaint or memorandum of appeal. Provided that the Court may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded, proceed with the suit or appeal if the plaintiff or the appellant; as the case may be, gives security, to the satisfaction of the court, for payment of the deficiency in court fee within such further time as the court may allow. Provided that the Court may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded, proceed with the suit or appeal if the plaintiff or the appellant; as the case may be, gives security, to the satisfaction of the court, for payment of the deficiency in court fee within such further time as the court may allow. In no case however, shall judgment be delivered unless the deficiency in court fee has been made good, and if the deficiency is not made good within such time as the court may from time to time allow, the court may dismiss the suit or appeal. Section 6(4) of the Court Fee Act reads as under: Whenever a question of the proper amount of the court fee payable is raised otherwise than under subsection (3). The court shall decide such question before proceeding with any other issue. 11. Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffrespondent has accepted the legal position that the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of Section 6 of the Act operate in different fields. The scope of these two provisions are also distinct. 12. Subsection (4) of Section 6 gives aright to the defendant to raise an objection about insufficiency of the court fee. Before proceeding with the suit, the court is bound to dispose of the said objection. If the defendant fails to raise any such objection or if he raised but failed to satisfy the court then the field of objection gets occupied by Section 6(3). It requires an objection to be filed by an officer mentioned in Section 24A of the Act. 13. The learned counsel contended that the objection could be filed by the officer concerned mentioned in Section 24A of the Act, only if the suit has not proceeded and not otherwise. According to him since the issues have been framed and the suit has proceeded, the objection under Section 6(3) of the Act became not maintainable. I do not find any merit in this contention. 14. The phraseology used in subsection (3) of Section 6 is that if objection is filed by an officer mentioned in Section 24A, the court will not proceed further with the suit or appeal before disposing of the said objection. It does not impose any restriction on filing of the objection with reference to the proceedings of the case. 14. The phraseology used in subsection (3) of Section 6 is that if objection is filed by an officer mentioned in Section 24A, the court will not proceed further with the suit or appeal before disposing of the said objection. It does not impose any restriction on filing of the objection with reference to the proceedings of the case. Had there been any intention then the Legislature would have made such a provision. It is not the further proceeding of the case which will control filing of the objection but the objection will arrest further proceedings of the case. 15. The cardinal principle of Interpretation of Statutes is that a plain meaning should be given to it. When a Statute is clear, plain or unambiguous i. e. it is reasonably susceptible to one meaning, it is to be given the same meaning & no other, The Court is bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. In case if the contention of the learned counsel is accepted that will make section 6(3) meaningless and redundant. 16. Section 6 of the Act provides for the procedure to be adopted by the courts in dealing with the objection regarding court fee matter. The laws of procedure are devised for advancing justice and not to crush it. It is to facilitate justice and further its ends. It should not be penal in nature for punishing a party. Reference may be made to two decisions reported in AIR 1983 SC 355 Bhagwan Swaroop and others v. Mool Chand and others and AIR 1989 SC 1933 Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by L. Rs. etc. Thus I am of the view that objection under Section 6(3) of the Act was maintainable. 17. A reading of the impugned order shows that the trial court was of the view that since issue No. 7 on the question of court fee, at the instance of the defendants, has already been finally decided on 10111987 it was not necessary for him to decide the objection filed by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) on merit. The view taken by the court is erroneous. Neither the principle of estoppel nor resjudicata will be attracted in the present case. The order dated 10111987 was between the plaintiff and the defendants. The State was neither a party nor its objection was heard at the time. 18. The view taken by the court is erroneous. Neither the principle of estoppel nor resjudicata will be attracted in the present case. The order dated 10111987 was between the plaintiff and the defendants. The State was neither a party nor its objection was heard at the time. 18. The court was free to pass fresh order under Section 6(3) deciding the objections raised by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps). 19. Sri Faujdar Rai has intially referred to a number of cases decided by this Court as well as other High Courts but subsequently made a statement that reference may be made to only one case reported in AIR (37) 1950 Allahabad 520, B. Nathoo Ram Khanna v. Shri Krishna Ji Maharaj and others. In that case it was held that if after hearing the proper revenue authority the court had adjudicated upon the objection regarding insufficiency of court fee then the same cannot be challenged by the revenue authority, again. This case is also of no relevance to this case. Issue No. 7, which was decided on 10111987 was only on the objection of the defendants. At that time there was no objection by the revenue authority nor it was heard. The said order will not be binding ion the revisionist. 10. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffrespondent was that no relief should be granted to the State as it was negligent in pursuing the matter. The objection is devoid of merits. As soon as the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) received information about the findings dated 10111987 recorded by the trial court, deciding issue No. 7, an objection was filed on 18111987, just within one week thereafter. How it can be said to be a case of negligence? The State has been extremely prompt. No such objection was even raised before the trial court. 21. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, further contended that since this Court while rejecting the revision against the order dated 10111987 was of the view that the matter of court fee can be agitated in appeal by the aggrieved party, so a similar order may be passed in this case also. He also made a reference to Section I2(i) of the Court Fees Act. The submission has no force. 22. He also made a reference to Section I2(i) of the Court Fees Act. The submission has no force. 22. The State is not a party in the suit and there will be no occasion for it to file an appeal. The proper remedy available to the State is to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 6B (1) of the Court Fee Act. 23. Accordingly I am of the view that the order dated 2741988 passed by the trial court, without applying its independent mind and making the order dated 10111987 as part of it, suffers from the jurisdictional error. The order is not in accordance with the law. The court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. 24. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed but without any order as to costs. The order dated 2741988 is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court to decide the objection of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) in accordance with the law and observations made by me. 25. The learned Civil Judge Is directed to dispose of the objection by 14101991. Both the parties agree that they will appear before the Civil Judge on 1691991 along With a certified copy of this order. The Court will fix a date for hearing of the aforesaid objection which would be on or before 14101991. No fresh notices shall be issued to the parties. The record of the ease may be transmitted to the trial court within ten days. 26. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within one week. (Revision allowed.)