The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of R.10 of Order XXXIII and S.67 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 in the context of a memorandum of cross-objections filed in forma pauperis.

Headnote:
Court Fees - Memorandum of Cross-objections - Order XXXIII - S.67 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - R.10 of Order XXXIII - R.14 of Order XXXIII - S.67 (1) of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a memorandum of cross-objections in forma pauperis and claimed refund of the court fee payable on the memorandum. The court had to determine the applicability of R.10 of Order XXXIII and S.67 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that R.10 of Order XXXIII applies to cases of remand in appeal without deciding any question, and the word 'decree' in R.10 should be understood as the final decision of the court directing the payment of court fees. The court directed the plaintiff to pay the court fees but ordered that it will not be recovered from the plaintiff in view of S.67 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of R.10 of Order XXXIII and S.67 of the Act, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the court fees paid on the memorandum of cross-objections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted R.10 of Order XXXIII to apply to cases of remand in appeal without deciding any question and clarified the meaning of 'decree' in the context of the rule. The court also analyzed the applicability of S.67 of the Act and held that the plaintiff would be entitled to a refund of the court fees paid on the memorandum of cross-objections.
Final Decision: The court directed the plaintiff to pay the court fees but ordered that it will not be recovered from the plaintiff in view of S.67 of the Act.

Judgment :-

1. This matter has come up before us on the basis of an office note reading as follows:

"The Memorandum of Cross-objections in A, S. No. 411 of 1966 was filed in forma pauperis. There is no specific order in the judgment regarding realisation of court fee by the State.

For orders."

The plaintiff who had filed a memorandum of cross objections is the applicant in CMP. No. 16933 of 1972 and by that application he has claimed refund of the court fee payable on the memorandum of cross-objections and he has further prayed that it may be directed by this court in the event of its ordering payment of court fees on the memorandum of cross-objections acting under R.10 of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the court fee will not be recovered from him in view of S.67 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) under which it is claimed that he is entitled to a full refund of the entire court fees payable on the memorandum of cross-objections.

2. The question is not free from difficulty. It is however clear that R.10 of Order XXXIII, in view of R.1 of Order XLIV of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to appeals and it is not disputed before us to memorandum of cross-objections as well. It is also clear that the plaintiff has succeeded in the memorandum of cross objections, for the finding of the trial court that he is not entitled to mesne profits from the third defendant has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the court below for a de novo consideration and decision.

3. It is contended by counsel for the plaintiff that for R.10 of Order XXXIII to apply there should be a decree directing the party to pay the court fees and since there is no decree disposing of the cross-objections, the rule cannot apply. R.10 of Order XXXIII runs thus:

"10 Costs where pauper succeeds: Where the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the Court shall calculate the amount of court-fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper; such amount shall be recoverable by the State Government from any party ordered by the decree to pay the same, and shall be a first charge on the subject matter of the suit."

4. We do not think that it will be correct to read R.10 as applicable only to cases where the direction for payment of court fees is contained in a decree. R.14 of Order XXXIII shows that the direction to pay court fees can be an order as well. And in cases where there is 'remand' in appeal without deciding any question there will be only an order of remand and no decree. It is too far-fetched, we think, to construe R.10 of Order XXXIII as inapplicable in such cases because there is only a direction in an order in such cases for payment of court fees. We have to understand R.10 of Order XXXIII as providing for such cases too. The word decree occurring in R.10 on which so much reliance has been placed by counsel for the plaintiff has to be understood in the context as not a decree as denned in the Code of Civil Procedure but as only containing the final decision of the court directing the payment of court fees.

5. By the judgment of this Court it was directed that the plaintiff who filed the memorandum of cross-objections and the defendants who were the opposite parties and who were respondents to the memorandum of cross-objections must bear their respective costs relating to the memorandum of cross objections. In the light of the above, we have to direct the plaintiff to pay the court fees that would have been payable on the memorandum of cross-objections had be not been permitted to file the memorandum of cross-objections in forma pauperis. This amount has also necessarily to be fixed as the court fee payable on the amount which has been claimed in the cross-objections. That is at Rs. 4809-75, We fix the amount of court fees payable on the memorandum Of cross-objections at Rs. 4809-75.

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was contended on the basis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document