Amendments to the court fee structure that reduce fees benefit litigants and do not impair their right to appeal, thus apply retroactively.

ORDER :

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal was posted before me unnumbered on the request of the learned counsel for the appellant since according to the learned counsel the court fee paid as per the newly introduced Article 1(A) of the first schedule of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act inserted by the Kerala Finance Act 2025 with effect from 01.04.2025 is sufficient.

2. The Registry of this Court found the Appeal defective on account of deficiency of court fee, as according to the Registry as per Section 52 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959, the court fee payable in an appeal shall be same as the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the subject matter of appeal. The Division Bench decision of this Court in Usha v. Food Corporation of India 1997 (1) KLT 264 supporting the stand of the Registry is also brought to the notice of this Court.

3. The Appeal arises from a suit for damages on account of defamation. The Ad Valorem court fee of Rs.8,400/- is paid on the valuation of Rs,1,00,000/- in the Trial Court as well as in the First Appellate Court under Section 22 read with Article 1 of Schedule I KCF & SV Act.

4. The Appeal is filed on 05.04.2025. The court fee paid on the Memorandum of Appeal is 1% of the valuation as per the newly introduced Article 1A of Schedule I KCF & SV Act, with effect from 01.04.2025 which is extracted below.

5. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.R.Surendran.

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is liable to pay the court fee as per the newly introduced provision since the newly introduced provision reduces the court fee and is beneficial to the litigant. The learned counsel tried to distinguish the decision in Usha (supra) on the ground that the said decision is applicable only when the amendment Act is onerous to the litigant. The learned counsel cited the Division Bench decision of this Court in Kochappu v. Somasundaran Chettiar [1991 (1) KLT 657] and argued that it is this decision which is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. On perusal of both the aforesaid decisions of this Court, it is seen that in both the decisions this Court has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. M/s. S.G. Films Exchange [AIR 1960 SC 980] . It is useful extract Paragraph 12 of the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

“ 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 more onerous condition is not a matter of procedure only, it impairs or imperils a substantive right and an enactment which does so is not retrospective unless it says so expressly or by necessary intendment."

8. After referring to the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and another decision of this Court in Raman Kumaran v. Kalikutty Amma , [1969 KLT 229] the Division Bench of this Court in Kochappu (supra) held that those decisions are not applicable, as by the Amendment Acts considered in those decisions the revision Court Fee is upward, which is onerous to the litigant, whereas by the Amendment Act before this Court the revision Court Fee is downward, which is beneficial to the litigant. It is usefu