GANGA NAICKEN AND ANR. Vs. A. SUNDARAM AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference raises a question of the construction of Section 87(2) of the Madras Court Fees Act XIV of 1955.

(2.) THE matter directly arose out of a copy application filed for obtaining a copy of judgment and decree in Civil Revision Petition No. 910 of 1954 where a two annas court -fee stamp was affixed on the application, which was the fee payable under the Court Fees Act of 1870, the present court -fee being four annas for the same application under Article 11(a) and (b) of Schedule II to the Act. The contention of the learned Advocate is that the application for a copy is in respect of a proceeding arising from a suit or proceeding before the commencement of the Act, and as such under Section 87(2), such an application would be governed by the previous Court Fees Act VII of 1870.

(3.) THE contention of the Assistant Government Pleader is that a copy application for judgment and decree, even though it relates to a suit or proceeding instituted before the commencement of the Act or in respect of a revision petition instituted before its commencement, will be governed only by the provisions of the new Act, as a copy application could not come within the meaning of a