Back
1964 Supreme(Cal) 9
High Court of Calcutta
Laik, D. Basu, JJ.
Babulal Tailor – Appellant
Versus
Sree Sree Chanda Prabhuji Maharaj – Respondent
Decided On : Jan 17, 1964
The Stamp Reporter can only report an appeal as 'in form' once, after a complete examination of all the points for which his office is responsible.
Headnote:
APPELLATE PROCEDURE - STAMP REPORTER'S DUTY - INTERPRETATION OF RULES AND PRACTICE - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the duty of the Stamp Reporter and the Registrar, Appellate Side, High Court, in interpreting the business of the judicial department, Appellate Side, High Court, and Rules of Orders 41, 42, and 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in light of the prevailing practice and procedure followed by the Stamp Reporter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Stamp Reporter's practice of reporting an appeal as 'in form' twice, initially and finally, was not supported by any provision of law and could lead to confusion. The court also found that the Registrar had failed to discharge his duties by not assisting the court in examining the matter and by blindly following and dittoing the office reports.
Issues: 1. Whether the Stamp Reporter can report an appeal as 'in form' twice, initially and finally? 2. Whether the Registrar had discharged his duties by blindly following and dittoing the office reports?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Stamp Reporter cannot report an appeal as 'in form' twice, initially and finally, as this is not supported by any provision of law and can lead to confusion. 2. The court held that the Registrar had failed to discharge his duties by blindly following and dittoing the office reports, particularly when a Bench of this court inspite of successive Reports of the Stamp Reporter specially directed him to look into the matter and report book.
Final Decision: The court directed the Stamp Reporter to report an appeal as 'in form' only after a complete examination of all the points for which his office is responsible. The court also directed the Registrar to assist the court in examining matters and to not blindly follow and ditto the office reports.
1. THIS raises a question as to the duty of the stamp Reporter with regard to his report on the filing of a Memorandum appeal in this court and consequent duty of the learned Registrar, Appellate Side, on the interpretation of the business of the judicial department, Appellate Side, High Court and Rules of Orders 41, 42 and 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the light of the prevailing practice and procedure, followed by the Stamp Reporter. The facts briefly are as follows: from an Original Decree and Judgment passed by Sri H. N. Sen, Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, the memorandum, giving rise to the above appeal, was filed in this court on November 19, 1962. On the back of the Memorandum after noting in rubber stamp the date of its presentation by the Stamp Reporter, the further rubber stamps to the following effect are put in "Stamp Sufficient (as per valuation) In time in form the 2nd Judge's copy of the papers not filed Stamp Reporter."
2. THE Stamp Reporter in the instant case not only reported on June 4, 1963 as "stamp sufficient" on the back of the Memorandum but tic marks was also given against items "in time" and "in form", signifying thereby that the appeal is not barred by time and is in proper order. That is his first report. On July 8, 1963, the Stamp Reporter placed the matter before the Registrar on giving a second report which has been recorded in the Order Book of the Appeal to the following effect:
"please see Stamp Reporter's report dated 4. 6. 63. The Court No. of the presiding Judge in the trial court in the preamble to the grounds of appeal appears to be wrong. The L/adv. may be asked to correct it."
I may state here that in the Memorandum of Appeal, the Third Bench of the City Civil Court is mentioned in the preamble, though the certified copy of the judgment and decree mentions the Bench as the eighth one of the said court. On the said report of the Stamp Reporter dated July 8, the Registrar, appellate Side of this Court passed an order on the 9th July, 1963, asking the learned Advocate to make necessary correction within one week. It appears further that on July 24, and August 13, 1963, there are two further reports of the Stamp Reporter, intimating that the necessary correction has not been carried out by the learned Advocate, in pursuance of which the Registrar placed the matter before the Division Bench 'for Orders' on August 14, 1963.
3. ON November 21, 1963, Banerjee, J. sitting with my learned brother called for an explanation from the office as to why the matter had been placed before the Bench as it did not appear from the Stamp Reporter's report dated June 4, 1963, indicated above that the number of the court of the presiding Judge was wrong. On November 23, 1963, the Stamp Reporter inter alia reported back as follows:
"every appeal is examined by an Assistant of S. R.'s section to find out routine defects or clerical errors, if any, either in the memorandum of appeal or in other papers filed with it after the Stamp Reporter records his report on it on technical points re: Court-fees, limitation, form of appeal and the like and also after the court-fees thereon are duly punched. When such routine defects or clerical errors are noticed in any appeal by the Assistant concerned he draws up a report in that regard in the Order Book of the said appeal which, on being countersigned by the Stamp Reporter, is placed before the Registrar in Lawazima for appropriate orders. "
In this case also, the same thing happened.
4. THE matter then came up on 4th December, 1963, before the Division Bench with the said report of the Stamp Reporter dated November 23, 1963, off which the court directed the Stamp Reporter to submit a further report, his earlier reports being not reconcilable. On December 11, 1963, the Stamp Reporter submitted inter alia another report as follows:-
"the report recorded by me on 4. 6. 63 on the back of the memorandum of appeal was on broad points only, viz., Court-fee
