ORDER : A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. 1. The liability of the plaintiff, who has partly lost or completely lost the case to pay court fee under Order 33 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is the question before this Full Bench, in reference. The reference is in the context of the amendments to the CPC, published in the gazette on 30/12/1999 and 23/05/2002, respectively, both of which subsequently came into force on 1/07/2002. The Division Bench, while referring this matter, noted the impact and effect of the State Amendment prior to the Central Amendments to the CPC and doubted the operation of the State Amendment after the 1999 and 2002 Amendments to the CPC. 2. We heard the learned counsels for the private parties as well as the learned Government Pleader. 3. Order 33 of the CPC refers to a suit by an indigent person. It specifically refers to recovery of court fees from the plaintiff when he succeeds in the suit and also when he fails in the suit. The reference is on the point involved when the indigent plaintiff fails in the suit. Order 33 Rule 11 CPC as it was originally, reads thus: Where the plaintiff fails in the suit or the permission granted to him to sue as an indigent person has been withdrawn, or where the suit is withdrawn or dismissed,- (a) because the summons for the defendant to appear and answer has not been served upon him in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the court-fee or postal charges (if any) chargeable for such service or to present copies of the plaint or concise statement, or (b) because the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall order the plaintiff, or any person added as a co-plaintiff to the suit, to pay the court-fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as an indigent person. The above provision clearly states that the Court ‘shall’ order the plaintiff to pay the court fees which would have been paid if he had not been permitted to sue as an indigent person. The verb 'shall' denotes the mandatory recovery from the plaintiff when he fails in the suit. 4. The State Government issued a notification bringing an amendment to the CPC on 13/1/1999. The verb 'shall' denotes the mandatory recovery from the plaintiff when he fails in the suit. 4. The State Government issued a notification bringing an amendment to the CPC on 13/1/1999. The amendment to Order 33 Rule 11 CPC reads thus: In Rule 11 of Order 33, the word “shall” occurring after clause “b” shall be substituted by the word “may”. By virtue of the amendment, a discretion has been conferred upon the Court to recover the court fees from the plaintiff who failed. The State Amendment, no doubt, is repugnant to the Central enactment. The CPC falls under Entry 13 of List III-Concurrent List, Schedule 7 of the Constitution. 5. The CPC (Amendment) Acts, 1999 and 2002 brought radical changes to various procedures. However, the amendments had not touched procedures relating to indigent persons. The relevant provisions under Section 32 of the 1999 Amendment Act and Section 16 of the 2002 Amendment Act read as follows: 32. Repeal and savings.-(1) Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except insofar as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed. 16. Repeal and savings. - (1). Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except in so far as such amendment or provisions are consistent with the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed. 6. Section 32 of the 1999 Amendment Act and Section 16 of the 2002 Amendment Act states that all other State amendments prior to the commencement of the 1999 Amendment Act and the 2002 Amendment Act which are not consistent with the principal Act as amended by the Central enactment, stand repealed. The CPC amendments came into force with effect from 1/7/2002. The point therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the State amendments enacted prior to the Central amendments to the CPC would cease to be in operation or not. The CPC amendments came into force with effect from 1/7/2002. The point therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the State amendments enacted prior to the Central amendments to the CPC would cease to be in operation or not. A similar amendment has been considered by the Apex Court in Ganapat Giri v IInd Additional District Judge, Balia and others [ AIR 1986 SC 589 ] and held that by virtue of repeal, it has an overriding effect on all State amendments whether an amendment was made to the particular provision or not in the subsequent Central enactment. The Apex Court was of the opinion that the intention of the Parliament was to keep the entire Code intact as amended by the Parliament, to be applicable throughout the Country and any local amendments prior to the Central amendment whether it was covered by the amending Central Act or not, shall not remain statutorily. However, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court doubted the sweeping law laid down on repeal in Ganapat’s case (supra) on the impact on all local amendments made to the CPC prior to the CPC (Amendment) Act 1976. In PT.Rishikesh and Another v. Salma Begum (Smt) [ 1995 4 SCC 718 ], the Apex Court with reference to Article 254 of the Constitution and Section 97 of the CPC (Amendment) Act 1976, narrowed down the proposition of law laid down in Ganapat Giri’s case and opined that repeal and savings would only take away the prior State amendments which are inconsistent with the Central Act. The Court further held that by operation of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India, any pre-existing State amendment or provision made by the High Court which is found to be inconsistent with the principal Act as amended by the Central enactment, would be void. 7. The view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that the State Amendment if inconsistent or repugnant to the subsequent Central enactment would be void under Article 254(2)of the Constitution of India, to the extent of repugnancy unless the State Legislature re-enacts the amendment and obtains the assent of the President. The Court also observed that by operation of Section 97 of the Central enactment, such State amendment stands repealed unless the State legislature re-enacts the amendment in the manner prescribed under Article 254(2). 8. The Court also observed that by operation of Section 97 of the Central enactment, such State amendment stands repealed unless the State legislature re-enacts the amendment in the manner prescribed under Article 254(2). 8. The State’s competency to bring amendment to the CPC cannot be doubted in light of the power conferred upon the High Courts to make Rules. We have no doubt about the State's power to make Rules under Section 122 of the CPC. But this power exercised under Section 122 cannot be exercised in such a manner to amend the Central enactment, in a manner repugnant to the provisions of the Central enactment without the assent of the President. 9. We have serious doubt about the validity of the Rule made by the State Government in exercise of the power under Section 122 of the CPC when it is seen that the amendment so brought is repugnant to the Central enactment and the State Government has not obtained the assent of the President as referred to under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. We leave it at this. We are not embarking upon an adjudication on this aspect for the simple reason that, in our considered view, any State amendment prior to the Central amendment on a matter, including a concurrent subject, to the extent of repugnancy has to be declared as void in light of Pt. Rishikesh’s case (supra). 10. The very purpose of Section 32 and 16 of the Central Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002, respectively, is to maintain the Civil Procedure Code as a complete Code applicable throughout India. However, the State has liberty to re-enact the repealed provision, if it is found repugnant or inconsistent with the Central enactment following the procedure under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. 11. A learned single Judge of this Court in Khaleel v. Aranjikkal Jamal Muhammed and Another [ 2017 (5) KHC 899 ], in fact had considered all the precedents in this matter and taken the view that the Kerala amendment to Order 8A ceased to operate after the CPC Amendment Act 1976. The CPC Amendment Act, 1976 contains similar provisions to Sections 32 and 16 of the CPC Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002. Section 97(1) of the CPC Amendment Act, 1976 is in pari materia with Sections 32(1) and 16(1) of the CPC Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002. The CPC Amendment Act, 1976 contains similar provisions to Sections 32 and 16 of the CPC Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002. Section 97(1) of the CPC Amendment Act, 1976 is in pari materia with Sections 32(1) and 16(1) of the CPC Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002. The amendment of the State Government made by insertion of Order 8A, brought by the State Government on 9.6.1959, was found to be inconsistent with the Central enactment. Though there was no amendment to Order 8A by virtue of the Amendment Act 1976 in the Central Act, taking note of the mandate of Section 97 of the amended Central Act, 1976, the learned single Judge was of the view that any State amendment inconsistent with the Central enactment is void. We are in respectful agreement with the learned single judge in the proposition of law laid down in Khaleel's case (supra). In such circumstances, we are of the view that the reference has to be answered as follows: The State Amendment by notification dated 13.1.1999, is declared as repealed, in light of Section 32(1) and Section 16(1) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, respectively, and ceased to be in operation. The reference is answered accordingly.