( 1 ) A startling and unjust result would follow namely a litigant who is denied entry to the Court Room would yet have to pay the fees for trying to seek entry there to in the sense that though his plaint may be rejected and he may be denied a decision on merits or in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code on the ground of failure to comply with the Court order to revise upwards the valuation of the suit and to pay differential courtfees be would yet be made to pay the same if the order of the learned trial Judge were to be sustained.

( 2 ) THE petitioner instituted a suit being Suit No. 339/72 in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D) at Baroda. Upon an objection being raised with regard to the adequacy of the courtfees he was directed to revise the valuation upwards and make good the resultant deficit of Rs. 2260. 00. Upon the failure of the plaintiff to revise the valuation upwards and to pay the deficit courtfees on the ground that he was unwilling and unable to do so the learned trial Judge rejected the plaint by his order dated January 15 1974 Some four months thereafter at the instance of the original defendants the Inspecting Officer made a prayer to the Court for issuing a certificate for the recovery of the deficit courtfees notwithstanding the fact that the plaint stood rejected by virtue of the aforesaid order of the Court. thereupon the plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present petition.

( 3 ) A reference to the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 will show that it is incumbent on the Court to reject a plaint under clause (c) where the suit is properly valued but the plaint is insufficiently stamped. In that case as even on the basis of the valuation made by the plaintiff himself the plaint is not adequately stamped the Court cannot proceed further with this suit till the plaint is properly stamped and the Court can take cognizance of the plaint. This must be so because under sec. 4 of the Bombay Courtfees Act of 1959 no Court can take official cognizance of a document which is not properly stamped. Such a document cannot be filed exhibited or recorded or received by any public officer till the document is properly stamped. When therefore on the face of. It the plaint is not properly stamped the Court has no option but to reject the plaint. Under Rule 13 of Order 7 it is provided that such a rejection will not preclude a litigant from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. This stands to reason on principle for the plaint has been rejected not on account of want of merit in the suit but it has been rejected on the ground that it is not properly stamped and the officers of the Court cannot receive it or act on it till the document is properly stamped. The rejection of the plaint on this ground is not a determination on merits of the dispute and under the circumstances a plaintiff whose plaint has been rejected can file a fresh suit as and when he is in a position to pay the necessary courtfees When a plaint is rejected on such a ground there is no question of the plaintiff being required to make good the deficit or the plaintiff being compelled to make good the deficit by recovery proceedings under sub-sec. (6) of sec. 12 of the Courtfees Act. When the Court refuses to act on the plaint and rejects it and denies the plaintiff an opportunity of availing of the forum of the Court for seeking redress on the ground that sufficient courtfees are not paid he cannot be compelled to pay courtfees for otherwise the result would be that while his plaint has been rejected and he has been refused an adjudication on merits he could yet be compelled to pay the courtfees. It must be realised that once a plaint is rejected there is no jurisdiction in the Court to revive the proceeding having regard to the scheme of Order 7. The only course open is to file a fresh plaint. A grave injust