The Second Amendment to the Court Fees Act is inapplicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh without official extension, necessitating reliance on the previous legislation for court fee valuation.

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Factual Matrix of the case.

1. Initially a civil suit bearing No. 180 of 17.07.2006 was preferred by the plaintiff-Jagmohan Singh in the Court of the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nakodar. The said suit became dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2010.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff appellant filed an appeal thereagainst on 23.11.2010, thus before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar. The said appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

3. Feeling dis-satisfied from the afore verdict, wherebys the suit of the plaintiff became decreed, thus the defendant/respondent preferred there against the instant second appeal before this Court.

4. While scrutinizing the appeal, the Registry of this Court has raised an objection with regard to the insufficiency of affixation of Court fee on the appeal. However, the learned counsel for the appellant had put an explanatory note, thus stating that proper Court fee has been affixed on the second appeal, and, further requested to put up the case as it is, before the Bench.

5. When the appeal was listed before the Bench concerned on 27.11.2013, the hereinafter extracted relevant submissions were made by the counsel for the appellant.

“Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has brought to the notice of this Court that the Court fee has been affixed on the appeal as per the Court Fees Act, 1870, as amended vide Punjab Act No. 7 of 1999 which was extended to the Union Territory, Chandigarh vide notification dated 20.07.2009. However, the registry has raised an objection with regard to insufficiency of Court fee on the ground that the Court Fees Act, 1870, as amended vide Punjab Act No. 7 of 1999, which was applicable in the Union Territory of Chandigarh has been further amended vide notification dated 25.01.2010, known as the Court Fees (Punjab Second Amendment) Act, 2009 and therefore, the appellant was required to affix the Court fee on the basis of Schedules I and II, as revised vide aforesaid Act of 2009.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that till date, the Union Territory of Chandigarh has not issued any notification extending the provisions of the Court Fees (Punjab Second Amendment) Act, 2009 to the Union Territory, Chandigarh and therefore, the seat of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana being at Chandigarh, the amendments carried out by the State of Punjab in the Court Fees Act, 1870 vide Court Fees (Punjab Second Amendment) Act, 2009 cannot be made applicable and therefore, the Court fee has been affixed on the appeal rightly under the old provisions of the Punjab Act No. 7 of 1999, which continues to regulate the affixation of Court fees.

6. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.11.2013, rather after admitting the instant second appeal thus also framed the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law, for rendition of a decision thereons by a Larger Bench.

“Whether the Court Fees (Punjab Second Amendment) Act, 2009, whereby rates of Court Fee mentioned in Schedule I and II have been revised, is to be implemented in the Registry of High Court in respect of cases originating from the State of Haryana, State of Punjab and Union Territory or the same has to be implemented after issuance of the notification by the Central Government extending the same to the Uni