MUNSHI RAM Vs. RAGHUBIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' appeal in which court-tee is payable on Rs. 4,496/5/-. According to the Taxing Officer the fee is payable under the Court-Fees Act (VII (7) of 1870), as amended by the Punjab Court Fees (Amendment) Acts of 1922, 1926 and 1939, and as such there is a deficiency of Rs. 125/-. According to the appellants, the fee is payable under the Court-Fees Act of 1870 without taking into consideration the aforesaid amendments made in the Punjab.

(2.) In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act (XLVII (47) of 1947) the Central Government passed the Himachal Pradesh (Application of Laws) Order, 1948, which came into force on 25-12-1948. The enactments, both Central and Provincial, which were applied to Himachal Pradesh under this Order were specified in the Schedule appended thereto. One of such enactments was the Court-Fees Act (VII (7) of 1870) as amended by the Punjab Court-Fees (Amendment) Acts of 1922, 1926 and 1939. Subsequently, i.e., on 1-1-1950, the Merged States (Laws) Act (LIX (59) of 1949) was passed whereunder certain Acts, Ordinances and Regulations specified in the Schedule annexed thereto were extended amongst others to this State of Himachal Pradesh, and one of these Acts was the Court Fees Act (VII (7) of 1870). It was however not mentioned that this Act was applied as amended by the aforesaid Punjab Amendment Acts. The learned counsel for the defendants-appellants contended that it is not open to any Court to proceed upon the assumption that the Legislature had made a mistake in omitting mention of the Punjab Amendment Acts in the Schedule appended to the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949. He further argued that it must be presumed that this omission on the part of the Legislature was deliberate and not due to forgetfulness. These contentions are in my opinion incontestable. They are based on the well-known rule of construction contained in the maxim 'expressum facit cessare taciturn' (what is expressed makes what is not expressed to cease), as pointed out by Tek Chand J. in 'MADHO SINGH v JAMES R.R. SKINNER', AIR 1942 Lah 243 at p. 251. The learned Judge, relying upon the speech of Lord Halsbury in the House of Lords in the well-known case of

(3.) Referring to the question of 'casus omissus', the same learned Judge cited the following quotation from Craies in his Statute Law (3rd Edition) page 69 :