S VENKATRAMA AIYAR Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise an order passed by the District Munsif of Mannargudi on an emergent application for execution by the arrest of the judgment-debtor. The application asked for the issue of an emergent process with detention for five days and on the application a fee of Rs. 2-6-0 was paid for process fee and 12 annas in cash for subsistence allowance. We are not concerned in this case with the subsistence allowance ; but the application was returned on the ground that the process-fee paid was deficient by seven annas. The way in which the fee for the process was calculated is this : According to the Schedule of Process Fees in Appendix A to the Civil Rules of Practice, for a warrant of arrest in respect of one person to be arrested the rate of fee is Re. 1 and this includes detention for three days. When the decree-holder wants a further detention for five days, he has to pay at the rate of six annas per day under Sub-clause (a) of Clause (ii) of the Schedule of Process Fees already referred to. He also paid eight annas as extra fee for the urgent application, in all Rs. 2-6-0. The office calculated the fee thus : For five days Rs. 1-14-0 ; half of that for the emergent application Re. 0-15-0 ; total Rs. 2-13-0 ; and hence the Lower Court noted that there was a deficiency of seven annas in the fee paid.

(2.) The contention before me is that, in an application for the emergent issue of process in the Munsif's Court, the half-fee that has to be calculated under Note 2 of Appendix A is only half of one rupee which, it is contended, is " the ordinary fee ". Note 2 to Appendix A reads thus : " For processes applied for and ordered to be executed as emergent the fee will be the ordinary fee and half as much again. " The Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that the ordinary fee mentioned therein is not the Re. 1 but that plus the extra amount that has to be paid for any further detention beyond the three days under Sub-clauses (e) and (f) of Clause (ii) ; it is between these two contentions I have to decide.

(3.) I am inclined to think that the Government Pleader is correct. I think the words " ordinary fee " in the note are really used in contradistinction to what may be called the emergent fee. The ordinary fee payable in respect of a warrant for arrest if the detention was for three days is Re. I, but if it was for more than three days, an extra amount has to be added and the whole amount is the ordinary fee. For example, if a man applies for the issue of an ordinary process of arrest and wants that the warrant should be kept alive for ten days and wants that the warrant should be executed by an Amin, he would have to pay Rs. 3-10-0 in all. That is the ordinary fee upon an application for arrest with ten days detention. If that very same thing has to be executed emer-gently he will have to pay half as much again under Note 2. It is clear that there is nothing wrong in adding the detention fee when detention for more than three days is asked for, to the fee payable for three days and treating the whole as " ordinary fee " for the purpose of ascertaining the emergent fee, because the applicant gets the benefit not only of the issue of the process urgently in the office and the sending of it to the Central or Deputy Nazir for entry, in his B Register but also the benefit of its emergent execution by the Amin who has to give preference to emergent applications over the ordinary applications in his hand, and there is no reason why the Amin's fee should not also be increased by 50 per cent, in the case of emergent applications. The notification published on 7 October, 1924, in Part II of the Fort. St. George Gazette at page 1801 shows what the benefits are that a person, who gets an emergent process issued, gets. It says : " The processes shall be prepared urgently, under the supervision of the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court and the process memos with the processes shall then be transferred urgently to the Central or Deputy Nazir for entry in his B Register and emergent execution of the processes. " It is suggested that the words " ordinary fee " used in Note 2 to Appendix A are used to distinguish it from the additional fee which is spoken of in Clause (ii). I do not agree with this view. I think the words " ordinary fee " in Note 2 are used to distinguish it from the emergent fee and not to exclude the additional fee talked of in the beginning. The additional fee is as much a portion of the ordinary fee on an ordinary application for arrest of a person as the original fee itself is.