( 1 ) IT is a matter of surprise that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the Delhi Administration through the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority should have considered it necessary to approach this Court on revision under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of a learned Subordinate Judge dated 16-4-1962 holding that the court-tee purcha sed by the plaintiff In Punjab, when the plaint bearing that court-fee was returned by a Hoshiarpur Civil Court tor being presented to a competent Court at Delhi, can lawfully be received in the civil courts at Delhi as proper court-fee stamps.

( 2 ). The learned Subordinate Judge In his order relied on an unreported decision by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Mr. Gohi Mal, etc. v. Punjab National Bank Ltd. etc. C. R. No. 147 of 1951 D 24-4-1953 (Punj ). In that case. the court-fee stamps had been purchased in Lucknow and were used on a plaint filed in a Court at Delhi The objection that these courtfee stamps could not be lawfully used in Delhi Courts was repelled by G. D. Khosla and R. C. Soni JJ.

( 3 ). On revision to this Court, Shri S. S. Chadha the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners before me, has very strongly submitted that when the Division Bench decision was given in April, 1953, then the rules framed by the Delhi State Government and notified on 29-3-1954 in the Government Gazette (Delhi State) dated 8-4-1954 were not in existence, with the result that that decision must be held to be obsolete and no longer binding in view of the later rules. The learned counsel was, however, constrained to admit that there are two later Single Bench decisions of the Punjab High Court which directly go against him. One of these decisions was given by S. B. Capoor. J. in State of Punjab v. R. B. Madho Parshad, C. R. No. 482-D of 1956 D 5-1-1959 (Punj) in which the rules relied upon by Shri Chadha were considered and the decision given against the challenge to the validity of the plaint bearing court-fee stamps purchased at Gurgaon and later used In Delhi Courts. The learned Judge observed as under:

"it is well settled law that where a Court after receiving a plaint and cancelling the stamp affixed thereto returns the plaint for presentation to the proper Court under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. the latter Court to which the plaint is represented is bound to give credit to the fee already levied by the former Court. "for this view, reliance was placed on S. Visweswara Sanna v. T. M. Nair, (1912) ILR 35 Mad 567 (FB) and Ganesh Tavanappa Burde v. Tatya Bharmappa, AIR 1927 Bom 257. While dealing with the rules cited before S. B. Capoor J. and I may point out that the same rules have now teen relied upon by Shri Chadha, the learned Judge, after reproducing the relevant portions of Ss. 26 and 27 of the Court-fees Act, observed thus:

"rai Bahadur Har Parshad on behalf of the plaintiff has rightly contended that neither section 27 nor section 27 (b) authorise the appropriate Government (which in this case was the Government of Delhi) to make rules providing that a court-fee stamp which is not over-printed with the word delhi would not be usable in the Delhi Courts. . In the interpretation of the statutes, it is a cardinal principle that a rule which relates to a matter not arising under the provision of the Act must be held to be ultra vires of the Act. A somewhat similar point came up for consideration before the Patna High Court in Naresh Chandra v. Charles Joseph Smith, AIR 1926 Pat 408. In that case. the words for use in the High Court only were impressed on the back of court-fee stamps affixed on the plaint in a certain suit. After the stamps had been punched, they were rejected by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that they bore on the back the words for use in the High Court only . The learned Judge observed that the words impressed on the back of the stamp may have some significance for administrative purpos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document