S.K.MAL LODHA, J.—This order will decide an important question relating to payment of court-fee on an appeal under s.l8(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (for short "the Ordinance") against the judgment of a learned single Judge passed in an appeal under s. 96 Civil Procedure Code.

2. We may, succinctly, re-count the facts, which are necessary for deciding the question.

3. The plaintiffs-respondents suit for specific performance of an agreement was dismissed by the District Judge, Pali, vide judgment and decree dated June 4, 1983. The plaintiffs filed appeal in this court under s. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned single Judge, by his judgment dated November 17, 1983, accepted the appeal, set aside judgment and decree dated June 4, 1983 of the learned District Judge, Pali and decreed the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of the agreement Ex.2 dated April 25, 1967. A direction was made that the plaintiffs shall deposit the purchase money amounting to Rs. 12,-318.50 along with interest or rent within two months from the date of the judgement and on their so depositing the amount in the trial court, the defendants shall execute a sale-deed in respect of the shop in dispute in favour of the plaintiffs and got it registered. Certain other directions were also made. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in appeal under s. 96, Civil Procedure Code of the learned single Judge, the defendants have filed this appeal under s. 18(1) of the Ordinance. The valuation of the appeal was the same which was of the suit, namely, Rs. 12,318.50. A fixed court-fee of Rs. 10/- was paid on the memorandum of appeal The appeal was filed on January 20, 1984. Office reported on March 28, 1984 that on further checking it was revealed that learned counsel had not affixed the court-fee ad-valorem against the decree and had paid the court-fee is accordance with Art. 3(iii);2)(a) of Schedule II of the Rajas-than Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), but the court-fee as held in Sohanlal v. Tulcha (1), payable on such memorandum of appeal is ad-valorem in accordance with Art. 1, Schedule I of the Act. As the deficit court-fee was not paid, the appeal has been listed for orders. Mr. R.C. Maheshwari, Additional Government Advocate has put in appearance, as the matter relates to the revenue of the State.

4. We heard Mr. H.M Parekh and Mr. R.C. Maheshwari, Additional Govt. Advocate and Mr. R. Mehta for respondent (caveator) on the question of court-fee.

5. Mr. H.M. Parekh, learned counsel for the defendants-appellant submitted that the court-fee of Rs. 10/- paid on the memorandum of appeal is proper and adequate as it is in accordance with Art. 3(iii)(2)(a) of Schedule II of the Act. He referred to an order dated May 8, 1981 passed by a Division Bench in Sohanlal vs. Ishwarilal (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 3/80), wherein an identical question arose and the Division Bench, after considering s. 47 of the Act, Art. 3(iii)(2) of Schedule II of the Act, s. 18 of the Ordinance, S.J. Bhogilal V. Temple Committee (2), C. Alexandar V. State of Rajasthan (3) and the order dated August 30, 1979 passed in Devi Singh V. Shushila Devi (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No 8/79, decided on January 18, 1980 held that the court-fee of Rs. 10/-, paid on the memorandum of appeal filed under s. 96, C.P.C. is not deficient whereby over-ruling the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and also on behalf of the State. It was also pressed for our consideration that if there is any vagueness or ambiguity in the provisions of the Act, with which we are concerned because of the bad drafting, an interpretation, which losses and does not add to the pecuniary burden of the litigant should be put, i.e. it should be interpreted in favour of the litigant who is required to pay court-fee. In this connection, reliance was placed on State of Maharashtra V. Mishrilal (4) and C.C. Rev. Vs. Fertilizer Cor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document