AMIN CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question before us is wihether on a petition for review of a judgment disposing of a writ petition the Court fee is payable under Article 4 of the First Schedule or under Article 1 (d) (iv) of the Second Schedule of the Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act. 1968. Article 4 of the First Schedule reads:

(2.) THE Schedules specify the Court fee payable on the documents mentioned therein. Article 4 of the First Schedule specifies that the court fee payable on "an application for review of judgment ..." is "one half of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal." It necessarily assumes, In my opinion, that the judgment of which review is sought has been made in a proceeding initiated by a plaint or a memorandum of appeal. That, it seems to me. is the only intelligible manner in which reference to the words "the plaint or memorandum of appeal" can be construed. Although the word "plaint" has not been defined in the Court fees Act. it must be understood in its well accepted connotation. A plaint has been described as "a private memorial tendered to a Court in which the person sets fourth his cause of action; the exhibition of an action in writing." Assan v. Pathumma, (1899) ILR 22 Mad 494. Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that "every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint...".

(3.) I am, therefore, of opinion that the court fee payable is that specified by Article 1 (d) (iv) of the Second Schedule of the Himachal Pradesh Court fees Act 1968. Chet Ram Thakur, J.