The Appellant in an unnumbered Appeal Suit of 2017 is aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned District Judge, Ernakulam, filed against the decree in O.S. No.1020/2013, directing him to pay additional court fee under the amended provisions of sub-s.(1) of S.76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation) Act, 1959 (‘Act’, for short).

2. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff in O.S. No.1020/2013 (Ext.P1) on the file of First Additional Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam for realisation of Rupees Ten lakhs from the defendant therein. The suit was dismissed and the petitioner filed Appeal as Ext.P2. Defect was noticed by the office for the reason that additional court fee has not been remitted at 1% as contemplated under sub-s.(1) of S.76 of the Act towards Legal Benefit Fund. The matter was placed before the learned District Judge and vide Ext.P3 impugned order, the appellant was directed to pay the requisite court fee within 15 days. The suit is of the year 2013 and it was only by virtue of G.O.(P) No.5/2016/Law dated 7.4.2016 that the provision regarding additional court fee for the purpose of Legal Benefit Fund to be collected and credited as contemplated under S.76(1) of the Act was introduced. It is submitted that the appeal is only a continuation of the suit filed in 2013 and therefore, the learned District Judge was not justified in insisting payment of additional court fee under S.76(1) of the Act. It is therefore prayed that the impugned Ext.P3 order may be set aside and the appeal may be directed to be numbered and received on the files of the District Court.

3. Vide order dated 11.12.2017, this Court directed the appeal to be numbered provisionally on receipt of court fee payable at the time of institution of the Original Suit.

4. The amended provision to collect additional amount towards Legal Benefit Fund under S.76(1) of the Act was introduced only on 7.4.2016 by virtue of the Government Order referred to above. The initial contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the District Court was that the Section does not apply to appeals under the Civil Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. G.O.(P) No.5/2016/Law dated 7.4.2016 reads as follows:

“S.R.O. No.315/2016- in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (10 of 1960) and in supersession of the notification issued under G.O.(P) No.116/2002/Law dated 5th April, 2002 and published as S.R.O. No.226/2002, in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.420 dated 5th April, 2002 the Government of Kerala hereby authorise the levy by the Civil Courts, the tribunals and appellate authorities constituted by or under any special or local law, an additional court fee in respect of each original suits, Original Petitions, original applications, appeals, or revisions, at the rate of 1% of the amount involved in the dispute, in cases where it is capable of valuation and in other cases at the rate of Rupees one hundred in each such case. The amount so collected shall be credited to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund constituted under sub-section (2) of Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.

The notification shall be deemed to have come into force on and from the 1st day of April, 2016.”

5. The learned District Judge held that the District Court cannot nullify the Government Order stating that the order is inconsistent with the Kerala Finance Bill, 2016 and therefore, directed the appellant to pay the amount.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Supreme General Films Exchange Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 980), held as follows:-

“12. It is thus clear that in a long line of decisions approved by this Court and at least in one given by this Court, it has been held that an impairment of the right of appeal by putting a new restriction thereon or imposing a more onerous condition is not a matter of procedure only; it impairs or imperils