T. P. TRIVIKRAMAN PILLAI Vs. KODITHODIKA IBRAHIM HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the violation of rule will spell an invalidatory consequence is the question highlighted in this petition. The application is one purporting to be under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the grant of permission to accept the stamp papers produced in payment of court fee for the appeal which have been purchased from the local licensed stamp vendor instead of from the ex officio vendor (the treasury). The total court fee payable in this case is Rs. 561/- and the petitioner has produced six stamp papers together worth Rs. 540/- and has made up the balance by adhesive labels. The taxing officer's note points out that under R.16 of the Rules framed under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act the Rules under S.69 of the Kerala Stamp Act 1959 are made applicable for the sale of court fee stamps except with regard to the rate of commission. Under R.36 of the Kerala Manufacture and Sale of Stamp Rules, 1960, licensed vendors can sell only stamps of and below the denomination of Rs. 400/- (the taxing officer's note fails to take note of an amendment brought about by a Notification dated 30 11 1969 substituting the figure Rs. 400/- for Rs.100/-). R.5(1) of the Rules under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 requires the use of the stamps of the highest denomination. It is useful to extract the said Rule here:

(2.) It is obvious, as has been explained in the note of taxing officer, that the object of this Rule is to protect the public revenue. If stamp are purchased from the licensed vendor, Government has to pay commission to him while, if they are sold by the treasury, that is the ex officio vendor, Government does not have to pay commission to anybody. Keeping this in view, R.336 of the Civil Rules of Practice (Travancore Cochin) provides that where the stamps used are of the requisite value but not of the highest denominations are purchased in smaller denominations from the licensed vendor when the same ought to have been purchased in a higher denomination from the ex officio vendor, the Court may waive the breach of the rule provided that the loss of revenue to the State, if any, caused by such breach is made good by the party in default by payment of such amount into Court. Of course, this rule applies only to the Subordinate Courts and there is no corresponding provision in the Rules of the High Court. Strictly speaking, in the present case a stamp for Rs. 500/- should have been purchased from the ex officio vendor. The excuse put forward is that the petitioner filed the appeal with a nominal court fee which was returned for representation within 7 days. The party could bring the balance court fee of Rs. 558.50 only on the last date for representation of the appeal viz; 30-9-1969 and since there was no time to purchase the necessary stamp paper from the treasury as per the rules governing issue of stamp papers from the treasury the petitioner purchased the stamps from the local licensed vendor and produced them into Court. It has now to be considered whether such production of stamp papers is in order.

(3.) S.77 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act lays down that all fees chargeable under the Act shall be collected by stamps and S.4 of the Act stipulates that "no document which is chargeable with fee under this Act shall be filed ........ or be acted on ...... by any Court including the High Court .... unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated as chargeable under this Act." A reading of these two provisions makes it a statutory obligation to pay the fee in court fee stamps of the value required under the Act. There is no insistence that the stamp should be of the highest denomination. Of course, S.84(f) provides for rules to be made regulating "the number of stamps to be used for denoting any fee chargeable under this Act." It is under this provision that R.5 has been promulgated.