SHOP Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 3/3/1997 passed by the learned Trial Court and that of the Additional District Judge, dated 24/7/2001, by which a suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,703.28 and delivery of ST1 forms for a value of Rs.13,811.97 or in the alternative to the ST1 forms for the amount of sales tax at the rate of 7% was decreed. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit on a variety of grounds fully taken note by both the courts below and found no merits in the defence put forth on behalf of the defendant.

(2.) The impugned order is sought to be assailed mainly on the ground that the judgments of the courts below are legally untenable and several substantive questions of law as detailed in the memorandum of appeal arise for consideration in this appeal. One such question raised about the power and jurisdiction of the trial court in permitting the plaintiff/respondent to maintain the present suit by exempting the plaintiff from paying the court fee on the second claim about handing over the ST1 form or in the alternative for paying the amount at the rate of 7% on the amount of the Bills.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the appellant the provisions of the Court Pee Act and the Civil Procedure Code are mandatory and the trial court was not justified in entertaining the suit/plaint, once the court fee paid was insufficient/deficient. In support of her contentions the learned counsel for/the appellant has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Sahara India Airlines Ltd. Vs. R.A. Singh reported as 1997 Volume 43 DRJ 217. On the facts of the said case, the court held that the provisions of law contained in Section 4 of Pees Act and under Order 6 Rule 11 (c) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE are couched in language which shows, that the payment of court fees prescribed in the first or second schedule of the Act is mandatory before a plaint or other documents or instruments referred to in the Section can be proceeded with. The facts and circumstances of the above stated case are distinguishable as the court granted blanket exemption to the plaintiff to file suit without payment of court fee with the stipulation that the court fee could be paid once the suit was decreed. In the case in hand the plaintiff had paid the requisite court fee on the amount claimed by him and he had also undertaken to pay the court fee on the amount of second claim because of the contingency that the 'defendant could have handed over ST1 Form and if he failed to do so the amount towards the sales tax was payable. The trial court while passing the decree has directed the plaintiff to pay proper court fee on the balance amount so decreed in that behalf within one month and that seems to be a permissible course. In my view no fault can be found with the order on this count. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the' amount of deficient the court fee Was not paid within the stipulated period of one month and the court extended the time to the appellant and on that account also the defendant has suffered has no merits.