Dhadi Naik vs Naran Naik and Another

Misra, J.—Plaintiff is the Petitioner. In Money Suit no. 654 of 1961 in the Court of the Munsif of Jajpur, the Plaintiff paid court fee worth Rs. 4.25 nP. As court fees of higher denominations were not available with the stamp vendor, Plaintiff paid one 4 rupee, twelve 3 rupee and two 2 rupee court fees. The stamp vendor also gave a certificate to the effect that as court fees required under the rules were not available, court fees of smaller denominations were given. This was accepted by the Court on 10-11-1961. On 28-4-1962 Sri L. Mohanty, Peripatetic Stamp Reporter, gave a stamp report stating that as no certificate under Rule 19 of the Orissa Court-Fees Rules, 1948, was filed, the mode of payment of court fees contravened Rule 18 of the said Rules. This report was accepted by the learned Munsif who asked the Plaintiff to furnish proper and adequate court fees. The correctness of this order is challenged in this revision.

The learned Munsif�s order is based on an error of record. The P.S. R�s remark that no certificate under Rule 19 had been filed, is wrong. In fact, certificate has been filed. The learned trial Court should not have left his discretion to the remark of the P.S.R. without applying his mind to the facts of the case. If the matter rested there, the order is liable to be set aside as it is based on error of fact which does not exist.

But on a perusal of the certificate there may be some room for argument that the certificate is not in accordance with the requirements of the Rules. The law on the point must therefore be made clear. u/s 28 of the Court fees Act, no document which ought to bear a stamp under that Act shall be of any validity, unless and until it is properly stamped. Under rule 20 of the Orissa Court-fees Rules, 1948, a document stamped otherwise than in accordance with the preceding rules 4 is not properly stamped within the meaning of Section 28 of the Court-fees Act, 1870. Rule 18 lays down as to what categories of court fees are payable when the amount exceeds Rs. 25/-. When the amount exceeds Rs. 25/-, it would be denoted by a single impressed stamp of the required value and if it is not available, or if the amount cannot be denoted by a single impressed stamp, an impressed stamp of the next lower value available shall be used, and the deficiency shall be made up by the use of one or more additional impressed stamps of the next lower values available. Rule 19 lays down that when the application for the stamp required is made to a licensed vendor of Court-fee stamps and such vendor is unable to furnish a single stamp of the required value, he shall give a certificate to that effect in the form below, which must be affixed to the document and filed with it. The form of the certificate is.

"Certified a single stamp of the value of Rs. (sic) required for the document is not available but that, in lieu thereof, I have furnished a stamp of the next lower value available, and made up the deficiency by the use of one or more adhesive impressed stamps of the next lower values available, required to make up the exact amount of the fee."

The certificate given by the stamp vendor is not strictly in accordance with the certificate required. Mr. Rath contends that the words Upajukta Court fee Nathibaru amount to substantial compliance with the Rules. The matter is not free from difficulty, but the Plaintiff should not be penalised in case of doubts and the certificates should be liberally construed.

The certificate also suffers from another defect. Under Rule 19, the certificate must be affixed to the document and be filed with it. Here the certificate is different from the document. It appears, the stamp vendor himself does not know the rule and I am reluctant to penalise the party, if the stamp vendor does not adhere to the form of the certificate required, when requisite court fees had been paid.

The learned Munsif�s order cannot be supported on his own reasonings. Though a different view is possible on the form of the certificate, a serious view of the matter cannot be taken as the party has committed no default, and the default, if any, has been committed by the stamp vendor in this particular case. The court fees paid are sufficient and the Plaintiff would not be called upon to file further court fees. The Civil Revision is allowed. As there is no appearance for the other side, there will be no order as to costs.