PIAREY LAL Vs. CHIEF INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under Sec tion 115, Civil P. C. by Piarey Lal and Indrapal defendants against the order dated 25-2-1971 of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur, allowing the revision under Section 6-B of the Court-fees Act and holding that the plea contained in paragraph 15 of their writ ten statement amounted to a set-off on which ad valorem court-fee was payable.

(2.) THREE points requiring considera tion are: whether the Civil Revision moved by the Chief Inspector of Stamps was within time and also whether it was maintainable in view of the fact that the order regarding suf ficiency of court-fee was passed by the Addi tional Munsif not on a plaint or a memoran dum of appeal, but in respect of paragraph 15 of the written statement. The last point for decision is whether the claim amounted to a set off or counter claim, or was by way of adjustment and no court-fee was payable in respect thereof.

(3.) SUB -section (6) of S. 6 of the Court-fees Act provides that in all cases in which the report of the officer referred to in sub-section (3) is not accepted by the Court, a copy of the findings of the Court together with a copy of the plaint shall forthwith be sent to the Chief Inspector of Stamps. The word "copy" has been used in the Limitation Act and invariably has reference to a certified or authenticated copy. When a copy of the order not certified as a true copy or not authenticated by the Courts is supplied to the Chief Inspector of Stamps how can he know that the copy received is a true copy of the order passed by the Court. The copy sup plied may not be a true copy. There is, therefore, no reason why the same meaning be not assigned to the word "copy" as is assigned under the Limitation Act.