The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deficiency of court fee in respect of the plaint cannot be made good during the appellate stage, and such permission could not be granted by the appellate court under Section 151, C.P.C.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No.65 of 2011 Sardar Gurpreet Singh and another v. Sardar Tejender Singh and another.

2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that plaintiffs/respondent Nos.2 & 3 instituted Original Suit No.580 of 2001 Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir and another v. Sardar Gurpreet Singh and another against the petitioners, seeking relief of prohibitory injunction, which was subsequently converted as a suit for declaration and possession inter alia on the grounds that the plaintiffs are the owner-in-possession on the basis of Will dated 25.07.1996 executed by their predecessor and on the basis of family settlement reduced in form of MOU dated 29.05.1999. Regarding the same property, another suit No.710 of 2001 Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir and another v. Sardar Gurpreet Singh and another was also filed, seeking relief of injunction and possession. Both the suits were clubbed together. During the pendency of the Original Suit No.580 of 2001, an amendment seeking relief of declaration and possession was sought, which was allowed and consequently, incorporated/carried out in the plaint and a consequential amendment in the valuation of court fee paragraph was also sought, allowed and carried out. According to the enhanced amended valuation, plaintiffs were supposed to pay additional court fee of Rs. 7,520/-, as per the amended valuation. Despite without making deficiency good, the Court below proceeded with the suit and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2011, a regular Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2011 Sardar Gurpreet Singh and another v. Sardar Tajender and another under Section 96 of C.P.C. was filed in the Court of District Judge, Dehradun, challenging the different findings, apart from challenging the non-payment of the additional court fee, and consequently, challenging the decree passed by the trial Court specifically in paragraph No.10 of the memo of appeal. The said appeal was subsequently transferred to the Court of respondent No.1. After receiving the notices of the appeal and after appearing before the Appellate Court, the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed an application on 12.10.2011, seeking permission of the respondent No.1 to deposit the court fees of ` 7,520/-, which was otherwise required to be paid before the trial Court. The petitioners filed objections against the said application. Vide order dated 21.02.2012, the respondent No.1 permitted the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.2 & 3 to make good the deficiency of court fee. Against the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No.65 of 2011 Sardar Gurpreet Singh and another v. Sardar Tejender Singh and another, present petition has been filed by the petitioners.

3. Shri Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a trite law that until and unless the proper court fee is paid and/or deficiency of court fee is made good, the case cannot proceed further and in absence to make the deficiency good, the plaint is liable to be rejected and dismissed for non compliance. He submitted that in the present controversy, without making deficiency good, the plaintiffs and the Court below proceeded with the suit that culminated in the decree in favour of plaintiffs, which by all legal fictions is non est and nullity. He submitted that the respondent No.1 failed to appreciate that the Court-fees Act is undisputedly a taxing/fiscal statute, which requires to be interpreted strictly. He further submitted that while passing the order impugned, the respondent No.1 failed to consider Section 6 (2) and proviso of Section 6 (3) of the Court-fees Act. He submitted that whenever a question of proper amount of court fee payable is raised otherwise than under sub-section (3), the Court shall decide such question before proceeding with any oth