P N BHATT Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT , J.-

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent next submits that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the certified copy of the impugned order passed by the Controller was not sufficiently stamped under Article 7 in "Schedule l.of the Court Fees Act, 1870. H6 submits that the impugned order is an order having the force of a decree and therefore court fee of Rs. 2.65 ought to have been affixed on the copy. Article 6 in Schedule I requires the payment of court fees at Rs. 1.25 paisc on the copy of the judgment or ordr not having the force of a decree. The question for decision is whether the impugned order is an order having the force of a decree. Section 42 of the Act provides that an order made by the Controller shall be executable by the Controller as a decree of a civil court, and the Controller shall have the powers of the civil court, la other words, it is not an order having the force of a decree but it is executable as a decree of the civil court by the Controller. In Sohan Lal Lamba v. Sarvshri S L Kapoor and A.L. Kapoor, 1969 R.C.R 174 this court held that order of the Controller was a decree of civil court only for the purpose of execution of the same and that it was not regarded as decree for all purposes. An identical objection was raised in Sultan Singh Jain v. Jai Chand ana another, ILR 1965(2) Punjab 677 and it was held that Article 7 in Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act was not attracted as the order of the Rent Controller, was not an order having the force of a decree though executable as a decree of a civil court. I, therefore, hold that the order of eviction passed by the Controller is not an order having the force of a decree within the meaning of Article 7 in Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. It is therefore held that proper court fee was affixed by the petitioner on the certified copy of the impugned order.