1. The plaintiff filed a suit on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Suit No.1889 of 2002 praying for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,42,461/- together with interest at 18% per annum. The plaint was returned by the High Court of Bombay, by virtue of an order dated 27. 2003 passed by the Court, directing the plaintiff to re-present it before the appropriate Court.

2. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the plaintiff re-presented the suit to this Court. On an examination of the plaint and the documents, the Registry found that a Court Fee of Rs.22,950/- was payable on the plaint, in terms of Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, read with Appendix I-A of the High Court Fees Rules, But the plaintiff had already paid a Court Fee of Rs.37,245/-, when it was filed in the High Court of Bombay. Therefore, the plaintiff did not pay any Court Fee while re-presenting the same before this Court.

3. The Registry returned the papers with a question as to how the Court Fee paid in Bombay could be adjusted against the Court Fee payable in this State. The learned counsel for the plaintiff re-presented the papers with an endorsement, relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court and a decision of the Punjab High Court, to the effect that the Court Fee paid could be adjusted.

4. Yet the Registry was not convinced, in view of a rule issued by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the power conferred under Section 82(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1955, to the following effect:

“Court Fee stamps purchased in the State of Tamil Nadu alone shall be used for the payment of all fees chargeable under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.”

Therefore, the matter was posted before Court for a judicial order of the issue.

5. I have heard of Mr. S. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. There is no dispute about the fees that Section 82(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, empowers the Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. There is also no dispute about the fact that the Government had issued a rule, as extracted above, prescribing that the Court Fee stamps purchased in Tamil Nadu State alone shall be used for the purpose of all the fees chargeable under the Act.

7. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff drew my attention to the following decisions:

1. S. Viseweswara Sarma v. Dr. T.M. Nair and Another (1910) 21 MLJ 533 (FB)

2. Vasavattula Sarabhamma v. Vasabattula Peda Veeranna and Another AIR 1950 Madras 57.

3. Bhura Mal Dan Dayal v. Imperial Flour Mills Ltd and Others AIR 1959 Punjab 629.

4. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. AIR 1969 Delhi 130.

8. In S. Viseweswara Sarma v. Dr. T.M. Nair and Another (supra) case, a Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras returned a plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. for presentation to proper Court. The plaint was re-presented to the Presidency Small Causes Court. The question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to credit for the Court Fee paid before the City Civil Court, was referred by the Chief Judge of the Presidency Small Causes Court. Justice KRISHNASWAMY IYER and Justice AYLING, before whom the Reference came up, referred the question to the Full Bench, in view of the importance of the question raised. Answering the Reference in favour of the plaintiff, the Full Bench held that the Court of Small Causes is bound to give credit to the fee paid before the City Civil Court, both on a reading of the provisions of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act and by taking note of a long established procedure in the Presidency.

9. But, the above Full Bench decision cannot be taken to be directly on the point, on account of three reasons viz.;

.(i) It was a case where the plaint was returned by the City Civil Court, Madras to be presented to the Small Causes Court, Madras. The Courts of different States were