SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. GOMTI KUNWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal arising out of a Suit No. 127 of 1933, from the Court of the first additional subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur. In order to appreciate the point which is not an altogether easy one it will be necessary to consider the proceedings a little closely. Mt. Gomti as plaintiff brought the suit against some 33 defendants divided into two groups, the first group composed of defendants 1 to 22 and the other group composed of defendants 23 to 83. It is not very material to notice exactly what her cause of action was. It is sufficient to say that she sought a decree for a substantial sum of money on account of arrears of maintenance and for an order that she was entitled to the benefit of certain yearly payments in cash and in kind. But it is important to notice that by para. 10 of her plaint she valued her relief at the sum of Rs. 17,000.

(2.) Mt. Gomti brought her suit in forma pauperis, and in due course it was duly admitted under Order 33 of Schedule 1, Civil P.C. The dispute was never actually fought out because in November 1933 the parties came to a compromise about it. At that stage it is necessary to look closely to see what happened. On 30th November 1933 the plaintiff put in an application before the subordinate Judge to amend her plaint. It is to be found at p. 9 of the record and to paraphrase it she said that being an inexperienced purdanashin lady she had made a mistake, about the value of the property she claimed and she asked to have the valuation of the relief claimed by the suit which had been put by para. 10 of the plaint at Rs. 17,000 reduced to Rs. 4050. It seems to have taken some time for that to come before the Judge because it was not until 1 February 1934 that the Judge made his order and then only by the somewhat laconic remark "Allowed". That date, 1st February 1934, is an important date.

(3.) On the following day a decree was passed in the suit which must have been intended to be a decree under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P.C., a compromise decree, in fact. That is the first we have heard of the compromise and it followed within twenty four hours of the Judge's order allowing the amendment to be made. I need not point out in any detail what the terms of the compromise were. The plaintiff obtained something substantial under the compromise, although it was less than what she had asked for in the suit. One important thing to observe however is that it was a term of the compromise, to be found in Clause (8) of it, that defendants 1 to 22 should pay "the court-fee due." It is significant to bear in mind that that was actually a term of the compromise. This compromise, then, came before the Court on 2 February, 1934. The actual decree under Order 23, Rule 3, was signed on 22 February, 1934. It is at p. 10 of the record and describes the claim as being laid at Rs. 4050. It went on to pass a decree in terms of the compromise and, among other things, it ordered "that the sum of Rs. 302- 8-0" that is the amount payable as court-fee on the valuation of Rs. 4050 "be paid by defendants 1 to 22 on account of court-fee." Now the result is obvious. Whether rightly or wrongly, the result was that the parties to the compromise, or rather defendants 1 to 22, had paid a court-fee which was a great deal less than the court-fee which would have been paid Had the original valuation stood and to that extent the treasury was the loser.