Roognath vs Modi Food Production Co. Ltd.

This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional Nazim, Sadar-Adalat, Gulbarga, dated the 6th June 1950 to the effect that Court-fees on the copies of the account books filed in the Court should be paid. We have heard the arguments of the learned Advocate for the revision, petitioner, Mr. Walchand Kothari. He has argued, that the order of the Judge is not in accordance with law; that the copies of the account books ere filed in the Court in pursuance of Section 78, Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code, (Order 7, Rule 17, Indian Civil Procedure Code) and are certified and exhibited as per provisions of Sections 167-169, Hyderabad CPC corresponding to Order 13, Rules 5-7, Indian Civil Procedure Code; that it is the uniform practice of the Indian Courts not to charge any Court-fees on such copies, as will be seen from the Pull Bench Case of ''Kastur v. Fakira'', 26 Bom 522 wherein reference is given to ''Hirachand v. Jivna Subhana'', 11 Bom 526 and ''Krishnaji Sadashiv v. Dulaba'', 15 Bom 687; that it has been held in these cases that no Court-fees are chargeable on original filing of copies because copies filed under Sections 141, 141 (a), 142 and 142 (a) of the Indian CPC of 1882, corresponding to Order 13, Rules 4-6, of Indian CPC of 1908, or Sections 167-169 of the Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code, cannot be deemed to have been certified "by or by order of any public officer", and hence, they cannot be deemed to be chargeable with any stamp duty under Art. 22, Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act No. 1 of 1879, or Article 24, Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act II of 1899 corresponding to Art. 17 of the schedule of the Hyderabad Stamp Act IV of 1331; and that it is true that to ascertain the accuracy of the copies the clerk of the Court subsequently compares them with the original entries but, evidently they were not certified copies when originally tiled and, the subsequent certificate by the clerk of the Court does not bring the documents within the terms Of Art. 24 of the Stamp Act II of 1399.

We have carefully considered this argument. It is clear that the copies of the account books are filed in pursuance of the provisions of the Hyderabad CPC and at the time of the filing they are not certified so as to invoke the application of the aforesaid provisions of the Hyderabad Stamp Act. It is also clear that Art. 8 of Schedule 1 of the Hyderabad Court-fees Act, corresponding to Art. 9, Schedule 1 of the Indian Court Fees Act VII of 1870, does not refer to the original filing in pursuance of the provisions of the Hyderabad or Indian Civil Procedure Code. Hence, we are of opinion that, no Court-fees arc chargeable on copies of account books filed under the provisions of Section 78 and Sections 167-169 of Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code. Thus in our opinion this Court''s Circular letter No. 3467, dated 21st Dai 1323 Fasli directing that Court-fees should be charged on copies of the account books tiled under the above-mentioned provisions of Hyderabad CPC cannot be deemed to be correct. It should, therefore, be set aside. We are aware that from 1st of April 1951 the Hyderabad CPC is not in force. But, as already adverted to above, the corresponding provisions of the Indian CPC also are exactly the same; and copies of the entries of account books filed in pursuance of those provisions do not make them certified, copies filed "by or on order of any public officer" and cannot, therefore, be liable to Court-fees. In the result we accept this revision.