Back
1962 Supreme(Ori) 100
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Barman, J.
MAYADHAR MISRA AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
UPENDRA KUMAR RAUT AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Civil Revision No. 157 of 1962
Decided On : 19-10-1962
D. Mohanty, R.K. Kar and Y.S.N. Murty, for the Appellant; A.G., for the Respondent
The valuation for the purpose of court fees in a revision petition is the value of the suit or the main proceeding wherein the order was made, and not the value of the appeal.
Headnote:
COURT FEES - REVISION PETITION - VALUATION - COURT FEES ACT, 1955, SCHEDULE II, ARTICLE 1(D) - ORISSA COURT FEES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1939, SECTION 22 - ORISSA COURT FEES (SURCHARGE AMENDMENT) ACT, 1947, SECTION 2 - HIGH COURT RULES, VOLUME I, CHAPTER VII, RULE 3(H).
Fact of the Case:
In a civil revision petition filed against an order passed in appeal, the valuation of the suit was more than Rs. 1000/-. The Petitioners paid court fee of Rs. 7.50 nP. on the basis of the valuation of the appeal, which was Rs. 450/-. The Stamp Reporter objected to the adequacy of the court fees paid, contending that court fee of Rs. 15/- (including increased sur-charge) was payable on the valuation of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proper stamp duty leviable on the revision petition was Rs. 15/- and not Rs. 7.50 nP. The court directed the Petitioners to pay an additional court-fee of Rs. 7.50 nP. within two weeks.
Issues: Whether in a revision filed against an order in appeal whose valuation is different from the valuation of the suit, court-fees should be charged under Clause (d) of Article 1 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act on the value of the appeal or on the value of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Schedule II, Article 1(d) of the Court Fees Act, 1955, which provides for court fees to be charged on revision petitions, and held that the valuation for the purpose of court fees in a revision petition is the value of the suit or the main proceeding wherein the order was made, and not the value of the appeal. The court also held that the expression "to which the order relates" in Schedule II, Article 1(d)(a) has reference to the suit or main proceeding and not to an application in the suit or in the main proceeding or to an appeal from any order made in the suit or the main proceeding on which the order, which is sought to be revised, was passed.
Final Decision: The court answered the reference accordingly and directed the Petitioners to pay an additional court-fee of Rs. 7.50 nP. within two weeks.
JUDGMENT :
Barman, J. - The question referred to me by the Taxing Officer (Registrar) for decision in this:
Whether in a revision filed against an order in appeal whose valuation is different from the valuation of the suit, court-fees should be charged under Clause (d) of Article 1 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act on the value of the appeal or on the value of the suit.
2. The proceeding out of which this civil revision directly arises was an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Balasore who set aside in part the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Bhadrak and made an order for retrial and fresh decision. It is against the said order of retrial passed by the lower appellate court that this civil revision has been filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners herein. The Stamp Reporter of this Court raised an objection to the adequacy of the court-fees paid in the civil revision matter. According to him, as the valuation of the suit is more than Rs. 1000/-, court-fee of Rs. 15/- (including increased sur-charge) is payable on it, but only court-fee of Rs. 7.50 nP. has been paid by the Petitioners fixing the valuation of the revision at Rs. 450/- on the basis of the valuation of the appeal before the lower appellate court.
3. The relevant provisions of the Orissa Court-fees Act and Schedule thereto and the relevant Rules of this Court so far as material for the present purpose, are these: Schedule II, Article 1. Clause (d) as amended by Section 22 of the Orissa Court-Fees (Amendment) Act, 1939 (Act V of 1939) is this:
An application or petition when presented to a High Court u/s 115 of the CPC for revision of an order:
(a) when the value of the suit or proceedings to which the order relates does not exceed one thousand rupees.-Five rupees.
(b) when the value of the suit or proceedings exceeds one thousand rupees.-Ten rupees.
Section 2, Clause (ii) provides as follows:
2. In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.
x x x
(ii) 'suit' includes an appeal from a decree except in Section 8-A.
By the Orissa Court-Fees (Surcharge Amendment) Act (Orissa Act XX) of 1947 as amended by Act XVII of 1958 all fees leviable under the principal Act were increased by a surcharge at the rate specified in the Schedule annexed thereto.
Chapter VII, Rule 3 of the Rules of this Court, Volume I (pages 17-18), so far as is material, provides that every' application for revision shall, immediately below the title, have endorsed on it...Revision...and shall state.
x x x
(h) Amount of the Court fee paid, the value of the appeal, and in the case of an application for revision, the value of the suit out of which the application arises.
4. The points, urged on behalf of the Petitioners, contending that they are liable to pay only Rs. 7.50 nP. and not Rs. 15/-, are these: Under Schedule II, Article I, Clause (d) as quoted above, the Petitioners in civil revision are to pay court fee of Rs. 7.50 nP. only because the value of the appeal out of which the civil revision arises was only Rs. 350/-. In support of this proposition the Petitioners rely on the provisions of Section 2, Clause (ii) quoted above providing that 'suit' includes an 'appeal'. It is further contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the practice of the High Court to realise court-fees on the valuation of the suit out of which the civil revision arises as per Rule 3, Clause (h), of the High Court Rules quoted above, is irregular because the rules cannot override the statutory provisions of the Court-Fees Act. By virtue of the Act 'suit' includes 'appeal'. It was argued on authority that the word 'includes' is used in interpretation clauses where it is intended that while the term defined should retain its ordinary meaning, its scope should be widened by specific enumeration of certain matters which its ordinary meaning mayor may not comprise so as to make the definition enumerative, and not exhaustive, and who it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as compreh
