JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has applied for letters of administration with the Will of the deceased annexed thereto. The deceased died on 1st January, 2010. The petitioner had filed an earlier petition of letters of administration with the same will annexed thereto being Petition No.466 of 2010. That petition has been dismissed for non-removal of office objections. The petitioner claims to adjust the fee paid in the former petition in this petition. 2. A petition is much like a suit. The CPC applies much to a suit to a petition or an application. Once the petition is dismissed the Court fee is liable to be forfeited. Court fee payable in a suit would be forfeited when the suit is dismissed. The rule of forfeiture in respect of a petition for probate, therefore, cannot be any different. 3. The petitioner relies upon the specific provision under section 23 of the Bombay Court fee act, 1959 for considering the same fee chargeable in this petition as in the earlier petition. Section 23 run thus: “23. Relief in case of several grants – Whenever a grant of probate or letters of administration has been or is made in respect of the whole of the property belonging to an estate, and the full fee chargeable under this Act has been or is paid thereon, no fee shall be chargeable under the same Act when a like grant is mad e in respect of the whole or any part of the same property belonging to the same estate. Whenever such a grant has been or is made in respect of any property forming part of an estate, the amount of fee then actually paid under this Act shall be deducted when a like grant is made in respect of property belonging to the same estate, identical with or including the property to which the former grant relates.” 4. Section 23, therefore, applies when a grant has been made and another grant is required in respect of another part of the property of the same estate. A grant is not made when a petition is dismissed. Consequently, Section 23 would not apply to such a case. 5. The petitioner claims that this petition be proceeded with without payment of Court fee and the petitioner shall pay Court fee when the letters of administration is issued. 6. A grant is not made when a petition is dismissed. Consequently, Section 23 would not apply to such a case. 5. The petitioner claims that this petition be proceeded with without payment of Court fee and the petitioner shall pay Court fee when the letters of administration is issued. 6. Payment of Court fee is required to be made under section 29 of the Bombay Court fee Act, 1959, which runs thus: “29. Payment of court-fee in respect of probate and letters of administration – (1) No order entitling the petitioner to the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be made upon an application for such grant until the petitioner has filed in the Court a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the third Schedule, and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No.10 of the first Schedule has been paid on such valuation.” 7. Under the said Section no grant can be issued and no order for grant of probate or letters of administration of could be passed until the valuation of the property is done and shown in the schedule and the Court fee mentioned in item No.10 of Schedule-I to the Bombay Court fee Act, 1959 has been paid upon the valuation. The payment is, therefore, required to be made upon the valuation being done. No petition could proceed even to registration until full court fee is paid. This right is also is much the same as the rules for registration of the suits. 8. Various items of Schedule I show the specific rate of the court fee payable in various cases. Item No.10 deals with the property of a sale or letters of administration with or without the Will annexed. It requires separate specific payment of fee in specified cases. 9. The Counsel on behalf of the petitioner seeks to contend that the reading of item 10 would show that the Court fee would be payable when the probate is ultimately granted and not when it is applied for. He has relied upon the judgment of Aurangabad Bench of this Court in the case of Shashikant Gangadhar Thorat & Anr. Vs. Punja Gangadhar Thorat & Ors. 2011(4) AIR Bom. He has relied upon the judgment of Aurangabad Bench of this Court in the case of Shashikant Gangadhar Thorat & Anr. Vs. Punja Gangadhar Thorat & Ors. 2011(4) AIR Bom. R. 132 in which it is held that the appropriate time for payment of Court fee in a petition for probate would be at the time the grant is made and there is no requirement to pay court fee when the application for probate is made. The learned Single Judge of this Court has considered clause 10 of Schedule-I of the Bombay Court fee Act, 1959 and Section 29 thereof. The learned Judge was considering the case of a grant of probate of a Will, the execution of which was to be proved. The trial Court had framed 4 issues including the issue of execution of the will, the jurisdiction of the Court and the payment of Court fee. The trial Court dismissed the application for probate as sufficient Court fee was not paid which order came to be challenged. 10. The learned Judge interpreted clause 10 of Schedule-I as also Section 29(1) of the Bombay Court fee Act, 1959. He held that court fee was payable only when the court is to pass the order entitling the petitioner for the grant of probate because in item 10 court fee is not shown to be payable when an “application” for grant of probate is made. The learned Judge held that as per the Golden Rule of construction the Statute should be read without omission or addition unless it is inconsistent with the other part of the statute. He held that the court fee would have to be strictly construed and hence held that an application for probate cannot be dismissed for non-payment of court fee stamps. 11. It is impossible to agree with the learned Judge on two counts: (a) The CPC makes a special provision for rejection of a plaint when the relief is not valued and on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within the time fixed by the court. The plaintiff failing to do so under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the CPC. The plaintiff failing to do so under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(b) of the CPC. Similarly a plaint is liable to rejection when the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon a paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff upon being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time fixed by the Court fails to do so. (b) The CPC applies as much to suits as to petitions and applications. 12. This shows that court fee is required to be paid when the suit is filed. If the Court fee is not sufficiently or inadequately paid the suit cannot proceed to hearing. The court may suo motu reject the plaint, if the court fee is not paid. The Court may also refuse to grant any relief in the suit by way of any interim order. 13. It may be mentioned that it is for this purpose that a suit or a petition is not even registered and registration number not even granted to a suit if the court fee paid by the plaintiff is deemed insufficient by the Prothonotary and Senior Master’s office. 14. The interpretation put by the learned Judge would also have to be seen. It is correct that the statute has to be read without omission or addition. However, it has to be read as a whole. It has to be read in its entirety. If the reading of the statute shows absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency with the other provisions of the statute the Court must whilst interpreting the statute add words such as would confer upon the statute logic and sense. 15. The Bombay Court fee Act 1959 would require to be seen in that light. Item 10 of the schedule cannot be read in isolation. It will have to be read along with all other items in the schedule. The very first item deals with plaint or memorandum of appeal …… for which specified ad velorum Court fee is required to be paid at an ascending valuation. Item No.1 does not show whether payment has to be made upon filing or when the plaint or appeal is decreed or dismissed or made absolute or any other order is passed. Yet Court fee is payable at the time of filing the suit. This is despite the fact that the words “Filing of” are absent. Item No.1 does not show whether payment has to be made upon filing or when the plaint or appeal is decreed or dismissed or made absolute or any other order is passed. Yet Court fee is payable at the time of filing the suit. This is despite the fact that the words “Filing of” are absent. Similar is the case with items 1 to 7 and 11 to 13 and 16A & 16B. Hence in item 10 for probate or letters of administration the similar analogy would apply. The words “application for” may not have been inserted in item 10 as they are not in the other aforesaid items. However, these items must be read as “application for” or “filing of”. The schedule I read as a whole would show that in some of the items being item Nos. 8, 9, 15, 16, 17 the words “application for” are mentioned before review, reference to a Collector, petition under Income Tax Act and petition under other Tax laws. These words are absent in the other aforesaid items. Each of the items would have to be read similarly. It cannot be that only whilst applying for review of a judgment or whilst making an application under the LAA or ITA or ST Act that the Court fee would have to be paid initially and for filing other plaints and petitions the court fee would have to be paid when the order is passed or grant is made. 16. It is logical as also imperative that court fee is paid when a party comes to Court. It would be absurd to suggest that the party comes to Court, agitates his/her suit/petition to hearing which may take decades and pays the court fee upon an order passed thereon. If a suit or a petition is dismissed, as has been in the case of the previous petition of this very petitioner, the petitioner would escape payment of court fee as he would not certainly pay court fee when his suit or petition is dismissed. The interpretation would lead to grossly absurd and illogical consequences. It would set at naught the entire administration of registration of plaints and petitions. Such “strict” construction is neither called for, nor required, nor apt. 17. The interpretation would lead to grossly absurd and illogical consequences. It would set at naught the entire administration of registration of plaints and petitions. Such “strict” construction is neither called for, nor required, nor apt. 17. A petition would be taken as analogues to a plaint or the applications under the CPC as much for the payment of court fee as for all other purposes. 18. Consequently, it is not possible to agree with the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Shashikant Thorat (supra) by the single Judge of this Court and it is not possible to grant the petitioner leave to proceed with this petition without payment of full court fee. 19. However, since the petitioner in this case has filed an earlier petition in which he has paid full court fee of Rs.75000, the petitioner shall be entitled to proceed with that petition for removal of office objections when it shall be considered whether to grant the petitioner leave to proceed with the earlier petition itself. In the alternative, the petitioner may pay court fee in this petition after which alone this petition shall proceed. 20. On the application of Counsel on behalf of the petitioner the petitioner is allowed to withdraw this petition.