JUDGMENT - (1) The point for consideration concerns court-fees. This plaint was presented to the Prothonotary of this Court. the plaint has been made out on papers which bear court-fee stamps of the aggregate value of Rs. 2,360/-. These court-fee stamps bear the imprint thereon "Delhi". This plaint was originally filed in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, and after certain proceedings in Delhi the same was returned to the plaintiffs for being presented to the proper Court on the ground that that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Under those circumstances this plaint was thereafter presented in the office of the Prothonotary and the office raised a contention that the plaint could not be accepted and filed in this Court unless proper court-fee had been paid to the office which payment would be made to the office on behalf of the State of Bombay. The only question for determination, therefore , is whether, even on the assumption that the amount of the court-fees paid by way of court-fee stamps to the Delhi Court was the proper amount, such payment is a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Court-fees Act, 1870. As this point concerned the revenues of the State of Bombay, I desired that notice should be given to the State of Bombay. Such notice should be given and the Advocate General has appeared and argued on behalf of the State of Bombay and Miss shamdasani has appeared and aruged on behalf of the plaintiffs.

(2) The relevant provisions are contained in the court-fees Act, 1870, section 6 provides.

"No document of any of the kinds specified as chargeable in the first or second schedule to this Act annexed shall be filed. Exbibited or recorded in any court of Justice.... Unless in respect of such document there has been paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the said schdules as the proper fee for such document. It cannot be disputed that a proper court fee has to be filed in this court. The only question is as to what is the meaning when the said S.6(1) provides that no document shall be filed unless in respect of such document a proper fee has been paid. The question is, paid to whom? Miss shamdasani contended that there is but one court fees Act prevailing in the whole of India and that once the proper amount of court fee has been paid in a court fees Act has been complied with an so no fresh court fee is payable even if the plaint is presented in a court in another state iin India. On the other hand, the Advocate General contended that although the court fees Act, 1870 was originally an Act of the Central Government, the same must, since the government of India Act, 1935 came into force be deemed to have continued in operation as an act of the various provinces of India and later of the various states in India and that therefore court fee is now payable to the state wherein the court in which the plaint is sought to be filed is situated. He contends that therefore on this plaint which is now sought to be filed in ths court court fee must be paid into this court on behalf of the state of Bombay before the same can be filed here.

(3) Originally the court fees Act was an Act of the Central Government and therefore, the court fee was payable to the Central Government. If there was any provision in any Act which was in force into operation which required or authorised that court fee should be paid otherwise than to the central government then of course coure fee could have been paid in accordance with the provisions of such Act, I am however, not concerned with the position that prevailed before the government of India Act, 1935 came into opertion. The government of India Act. 1935 or at least the provisions thereof which are material to this case came into operation in 1937 and it is sufficient for me to consider what was the position that ensued thereupon.

(4) Section 292 of the government of India Act, 1935, provided as follows:

"Notwithstanding the rep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document