SATYENDRANATH Vs. SUNDERDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN affidavit was filed in this Court by one Bansidhar Joshi, who is a clerk of Shri Zavar Advocate, giving reasons as to why there was delay in payment of process for service of notice to the respondent although there was an order dated 3 -7 -1957 passed by the Court requiring the appellant to do so within two days. The affidavit was accompanied by a Court -fee ticket of one rupee. The question raised in this connection was whether the affidavit in question was duly stamped in view of provisions of Schedule I., Article 4 of the Indian Stamp Act. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that in fact the affidavit did not require any stamp under the aforesaid provision inasmuch as it fell under Exemption Clause (b) of that Article. Reliance was placed in this connection upon the decisions reported in In Re the Application of (sic), I. L. R. 12 Bom. 278 and (Full Bench) Shri Kishan Das vs. Mohammad Nasir, A. I. R. 1947 All. 37.

(2.) IN my opinion the contention of the appellant is correct and ought to be upheld.

(3.) IN the present case no question of space interval or time lag is involved. There was delay in payment of process. The Court asked the appellant to explain the delay. An affidavit of the clerk of the appellant's Advocate was filed on 23 -7 -1957 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 16 -7 -1957 requiring the appellant to file an affidavit within a week to explain that delay. The immediate purpose of the affidavit in this case was to use it in this Court. The document is therefore not chargeable under Art. 4 of the Stamp Act as it falls under Exemption (b) of that Article. The document is accompanied by court -fee stamp needed for administering oath as required by the Rules and is quite in order.