MITHOO LAL Vs. MTCHAMELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an office report which deals with a question of court-fee. It is said that the appellant, who was the defendant in the original suit and the appellant in the lower appellate Court paid less court-fee on his memorandum of appeal to the lower appellate Court than the amount which ought to have been paid and that the lower appellate Court heard the appeal taking it for granted that sufficient court- fee had been paid or the memo of appeal to it.

(2.) The stamp reporter was at first of opinion that the deficiency in the court-fee paid in the lower appellate Court amounted to Rs. 66. Mr. Baleshwari Prasad, who appeared for the appellant, filed objections to the report questioning, inter alia, the correctness, of the amount of the alleged deficiency. The registrar, before whom the objection had been taken, directed the stamp reporter to reconsider the matter. The latter then declared the deficiency to be Rs. 20 which the appellant failed to pay within the time fixed by the registrar who is the taxing officer. Another question appears to have arisen in the meantime, namely, whether the appellant was con eluded by the report on the stamp reporter, which had not been challenged within the period of limitation. The bar was considered to be one arising from the provisions of Ch. 3, Rule 11, of the Rules of this Court, which provides that the appellant's advocate, on being informed of the stamp reporter's finding regarding the deficiency in the court-fee, should intimate within three weeks, whether he accepts it or disputes the accuracy thereof, and that in default of such intimation within the aforesaid period the appellant shall be debarred from questioning the accuracy of the stamp reporter's report. Mr. Badeshwar Prasad took a further objection to the effect that Ch. 3, Rule 11, of the High Court Rules, had mo application to the circumstances of this case and that the matter is one which must be decided judicially by a Bench of this Court. The registrar, who is also the taxing officer appointed by this Court under Section 5, Court-fees Act, directed the case to be laid before a Bench of this Court for orders in view of the appellant having failed to pay the court-fee, which according to the stamp reporter's report, was payable by him in terms of his report.

(3.) Three questions have been argued before us. The first is whether, having regard to the facts of this case, Ch. 3, Rule 11, of the High Court Rules, or Section 5, Court-fees Act, debars the appellant from questioning before us the accuracy of the stamp reporter's report. If the appellant is not so debarred the second question which arises is whether the full amount of court-fee, payable on the appellant's memorandum of appeal in the lower appellate Court, was paid, and if not, what amount should be paid by him to make good the deficiency.