Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 721 (MP)

Maiku Singh v. Anup Singh

2022-05-05

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard on office objection regarding payment of deficit Court fees. 2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant to decide the office objection are that appellants have filed this Miscellaneous Appeal against the award dated 21.10.2021 passed by XXII A.M.A.C.T., Jabalpur in M.V.C. No.7100099/2014 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the applicants. This Miscellaneous Appeal is for enhancement of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Office put the objection that appeal is not maintainable without payment of Court fees on that enhanced amount i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that according to Article 11 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act 2.5% Court fees should be paid on the enhanced amount. The amount claimed by the appellants in the appeal cannot be called as enhanced amount but the enhanced amount will be such as would be given by the Court after adjudication of the claim of the appellants. Registry wrongly demanded 2.5% Court fees on the amount which is claimed by the appellants in the memo of appeal. There is no certainty as to what amount will be awarded by the Court. Appellants are only required to pay court fee on the amount which will be determined as enhanced amount by this court at the time of judgment of this appeal. So appellant may be allowed to make payment of Court fee at the time of final decision of the appeal on enhanced compensation, which may be determined by the court. In this regard learned counsel also placed reliance on the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in M.A. No.851/2015 (Arun Kumar Dubey vs. Vijay Kumar Gujrati and Others) on 21.12.2016 and M.A.No.88/2018 (Smt. Meera Sahu vs. Deepchand) on 08.03.2018. 4. This court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by the counsel of the appellants. This appeal has been filled by the appellants u/s 173 Motor Vehicle Act. The memo of appeal preferred u/s 173 Motor Vehicle Act is required to be affixed with Court Fees as per Article 11 of Schedule II of Court fees Act., which reads as thus:- "(a) when presented to the High Court- (i) By the claimant for enhancement of the amount of award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2.5 percent of enhanced amount Claimed in appeal 5. 2.5 percent of enhanced amount Claimed in appeal 5. From the wordings of the provisions of Article 11 of Schedule II of Court fees Act" "2.5 percent of the enhanced amount claimed in appeal" it is clear that Court fees will be paid on that enhanced amount which is claimed by the appellant in his appeal memo and not on the amount which will be determined by the Court after adjudication of the claim of the appellant and the Court fees is payable at the time of presentation of the appeal not after judgement. 6. Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 bars the Court from receiving a plaint/appeal if it does not bear the proper court fees. Although Section 149 CPC acts as an exception to the said bar and enables the Court to permit the plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fees at a subsequent stage. But this Section also does not give unfettered power to the Court for giving time to appellant for paying Court fee. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Nawab John & Ors. vs. V.N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738 in para 23 of its judgement observed as thus:- "The Section 149 CPC does not confer an absolute right in favour of a plaintiff to pay the court fee as and when it pleases the plaintiff. It only enables a plaintiff to seek the indulgence of the Court to permit the payment of court fee at a point of time later than the presentation of the plaint. The exercise of the discretion by the Court is conditional upon the satisfaction of the Court that the plaintiff offered a legally acceptable explanation for not paying the court fee within the period of limitation." 8. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC also provides that the plaint shall be rejected (c) "where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so." 9. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC also provides that the plaint shall be rejected (c) "where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so." 9. Although, this Court in the case of M.A. No.851/2015 (Arun Kumar Dubey vs. Vijay Kumar Gujrati and Others) and M.A.No.88/2018 (Smt. Meera Sahu vs. Deepchand) gave the permission to the appellants of these cases that they will be permitted to pay court fees on the enhanced amount after judgement in the appeal. But in these cases coordinate bench of this Court did not lay down any principle that appellants are required to pay court fee only on the amount enhanced by the court in the appeal and that the court fee will be paid after adjudication of the appeal by the court. The orders are limited for these cases only. 10. On the other hand the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Hajarilal Agrawal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. 2006 (4) MPHT 237 turning down the prayer of appellant that appellant may be allowed to make payment of Court fee at the time of final decision of the appeal on compensation which may be determined by the court and held - Court fees is payable on valuation of appeal. The amount for which adjudication is sought not on determined, on the initial stage where Court-fee is required to be paid. 11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Skaria Vs. Govt. of State of Kerala & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 SC 811 held that non-payment of Court fees cannot be claimed as a matter of convenience or on the ground of hardship or on the ground that person suing did not know the exact amount due to him as that will open the floodgates for converting several types of money claims into suits for accounts to avoid payment of court fees at the time of institution. 12. From the above discussion, it is clear that the appeal is not maintainable without payment of Court fees on the claimed enhanced amount i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-, as also held by this Court in the case of Ramratan Singh Vs. 12. From the above discussion, it is clear that the appeal is not maintainable without payment of Court fees on the claimed enhanced amount i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-, as also held by this Court in the case of Ramratan Singh Vs. Janakchand Rana (M.A.No.781/2015) vide order dated 06/09/2017 and coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rashmi Mongare & Others Vs. Sunil Chaudhari & Others (M.A.No.1058/2021) vide order dated 14/06/2021. If the claimants are unable to pay the Court fee on account of indigency, they can always seek the leave to file an appeal as an indigent person under Order 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 13. Hence, appellants are directed to pay requisite Court fees within fifteen days, failing which this appeal shall stand rejected without reference to the Court. 14. On payment of requisite Court fees by the appellants within fifteen days matter be listed for admission in due course.