Lachmi Prasad vs Secy. of State

James, J.—The suit out of which this application arises, which was originally valued at Rs. 898, was instituted in the Court of the Munsif at Arrah. The plaint bore court-fee stamps to the value of Rs. 87-8-0 made up of five stamps consisting of an impressed stamp of the value of Rs. 40 and adhesive stamps of lower denominations. The Munsif found that the proper value was Rs. 1,100 which was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction; and he therefore returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. The plaint was then presented to the Subordinate Judge bearing additional court-fees of the value of Rs. 17-8-0 to make a total of Rs. 105, the amount payable on the valuation of Rs. 1,100. The plaintiffs then amended the valuation, raising it to Rs. 2,300 on which the proper court-fee would be Rs. 195. The Subordinate Judge finding that the original court-fee of Rs. 105 was made up of a number of stamps of small denominations which was not in accordance with the rules, directed that the plaintiffs should, file a new court-fee stamp of the value of Rs. 195. The plaintiffs, after obeying this order, petitioned for refund of the value of the court-fee stamps which were originally on the plaint, or in the alternative for the return of the stamps. The Subordinate Judge was unable to grant a refund and he could not return the stamps which were attached to the plaint which formed part of his record. He therefore rejected the plaintiff''s application.

It is argued on behalf of the petitioners in the first place that since they were unable to obtain from the vendor stamps of higher denomination, they should have been held to have complied with the rules when they filed whatever stamps they could obtain. But in this case, as the learned Subordinate Judge, has pointed out, the proper stamp for the plaint as it was originally filed was of a value above that which licensed stamp-vendors were permitted to sell at Arrah; and the petitioners ought to have obtained it from the Treasury. If is probably for that reason that the stamp-vendor did not go through the usual form of giving a certificate to the effect that he had not stamps of higher value in his possession, since such a certificate could manifestly not be given when the stamp of higher value which the plaintiffs needed was one which ought to have been purchased from an official vendor. It is argued in the second place that when the Munsif had accepted the plaint as properly stamped, it was not open to the Subordinate Judge to question the fact that the plaint was properly stamped up to the value which had been placed on the suit in the Court of the Munsif. He points out that it was held by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Visweswara Sarma v. T.M. Nair [1911] 35 Mad. 567 that where a plaint is returned for presentation to the proper Court under Order 7. Rule 10, the latter Court is bound to give credit for the fee already levied by the former Court, but the decision in that case amounted to no more than this that it would not be proper for the second Court to treat a plaint presented to it in those circumstances as improperly stamped merely because the stamps had been cancelled on presentation to the former Court. In the present case the learned Subordinate Judge did not reject the stamps because they had been cancelled by the Munsif. He treated the plaint as a document which was improperly stamped, and which had not been properly stamped when it was presented to the Munsif. No authority has been shown to me for the proposition that if a plaint not properly stamped is presented to a Court not having jurisdiction and is subsequently returned for presentation to the proper Court, the latter Court is not bound to treat the plaint as properly stamped even though it may never have been properly stamped merely because no objection to it was taken by the Court to which it was first presented. The plaint as it was presented to the Munsif and as it was subsequently presented to the Subordinate Judge was certainly not properly stamped within the meaning of Section 28, Court-fees Act, and the learned Subordinate Judge acted correctly in requiring and can require the plaintiffs to file court-fees which complied with the rules framed by the Local Government, u/s 27(b), Court-fees Act.

I consider that when the plaintiffs applied for refund of the stamps, though he acted rightly in declining to order a refund in a case to which the provisions of Sections 13, 14 or 15, Court-fees Act, did not apply, the learned Subordinate Judge might have granted to them a certificate stating the facts, adopting the form mutatis mutandis which was adopted in Harihar Guru v. Anand Mahanty [1912] 40 Cal .365. I would suggest that in the certificate the words "and ought to obtain" which, occur in the last sentence of the certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court may be omitted, leaving the question of whether in the circumstances a refund should be granted to the discretion of the revenue authorities. The petitioners may apply for such a certificate to the Subordinate Judge. The application is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee three gold mohurs.