CHANDANMAL Vs. ROOPNARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this review application the question that has arisen for our consideration is whether the court -fee paid thereon by the petitioners is sufficient. The judgment from which the review application has been preferred was pronounced by a Bench of this Court on the 9th October 1952. The review application was filed on 3rd January 1953. There is, therefore, no dispute that the review application was filed within 90 days of the Judgment. The appeal was valued by the petitioners for purposes of court -fee at Rs. 13,569/87 - and the present review application, has been valued at the same figure. The Stamp Reporter has reported that the court -fee of Rs. 108/ - paid by the petitioners is insufficient and that they should have paid one -half of the sum of Rs. 595/ - on the review application inasmuch as the court -fee payable on the memorandum of appeal, if it should have been filed at the time the review application came to be made, would be a sum of Rs. 595/ -. It may be pointed out that after the memorandum, of appeal was filed on 18 -9 -46 and before the application for review was made, the Rajasthan Court -fees (Adaptation) Ordinance had come into force on January 25, 1950, according to which enhanced rates of fees on plaints and memorandum of appeal are required to be paid.

(2.) THERE appears to be a conflict of judicial opinion on, the point before us. Articles 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 of the Court -fees Act (No. VII of 1870) provide as follows: Article 4.Application for review of judgment if presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree...The fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appealArticle 5Application for review of judgment, if presented before the ninetieth day from the date of the decree... One half of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

(3.) WE are therefore of opinion that the words'leviable on a plaint or memorandum of appeal'mean properly leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal in which the judgment soughtto be reviewed is passed and not on any imaginary plaint or memorandum of appeal whichmight have been presented at the time the reviewapplication was filed asking for the same reliefas in the application for review. We accordinglyhold that the court -fee paid by the applicant, inthe present case, being half of the fees properlyleviable on the memorandum of appeal, is sufficient.