Back
1955 Supreme(Ker) 103
Judges : JOSEPH
Narayana Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Krishnan Nair - Respondent
Case No : Crl. R. P. No. 27 of 1955
Decided On : 08/04/1955
Advocates Appeared :
K.S. Govinda Pillai; For Petitioner R. Narayana Pillai; For State
The interpretation of the Court Fees Act provision regarding Vakalaths and the impact of case transfer on the original Vakalath influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Vakalath - Transfer of Case - Interpretation of Court Fees Act
Fact of the Case:
The case was transferred to the Additional Court, and the Magistrate insisted on filing fresh Vakalaths, leading to the filing of a Criminal Revision Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order directing the counter-petitioner's Advocate to file a fresh Vakalath was unsustainable as the mere transfer of the case to another officer did not nullify the original Vakalath.
Issues: Interpretation of the provision for the levy of court fees on Vakalaths and the impact of case transfer on the original Vakalath.
Ratio Decidendi: The provision for the levy of court fees on Vakalaths contemplates a Vakalath for the conduct of one case, and the transfer of the case to another officer does not negate the original Vakalath.
Final Decision: The order of the court below was reversed, and the Criminal Revision Petition was allowed.
1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the counter-petitioner in Miscellaneous Case No. 28 of 1954 of the Additional Special Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, Trivandrum. This case was originally pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivandrum, as Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 1954. After the case was transferred to the Additional Court the learned Magistrate insisted that the Advocates who were originally appearing in the case should file fresh Vakalaths. This Revision has been preferred from the order directing the counter-petitioner's Advocate to file a fresh Vakalath.
2. Notice of the revision petition was given to the counter petitioner as well as to the Advocate-General. On behalf of the State it was submitted that the order could not be supported. The counter-petitioner did not appear in pursuance to the notice issued to him. The order in question cannot be supported. It is not as though a fresh case is filed before the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The provision for the levy of court fees on Vakalaths is contained in Cl. 5 of Schedule (II) of the Court Fees Act. That contemplates a Vakalath for the conduct of one case and provides for levying a court-fee of one rupee. The mere fact that for some administrative purpose the case was transferred to another officer does not mean that it is not the case in which the Vakalath was originally filed. The reasons stated by the learned Magistrate are quite unsustainable. The order of the court below is therefore reversed and the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
Allowed.
