The right to file an appeal vests in the suitor on the day when an action is initiated and cannot be curtailed by an enactment unless it expressly states so.

Sanjay Yadav, J.

1. Difference of opinion as to whether an order dated 18.11.2011 passed in W.P. No. 14740/2008 : Ashok Kumar vs State of M.P. and others and the batch of writ petitions, viz. W.P. No. 1796/2007, 3437/2007, 3804/2007, 3822/2007, 8611/2008 and 14738/2008 could be reviewed for the reasons mentioned in Review Petitions : R.P. No. 124/2012 and R.P. 306/2012, has paved the path for laying the matter before this Court for an opinion as to "whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the review petitions are to be allowed or dismissed".

2. The writ petition called in question the validity of provisions of the Court Fee (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2008 in so far as it substitutes Article 11a(i) in the second schedule appended to the Court Fee Act, 1870, stipulating -

"(ii) In article 11, for clause (a) and entry relating thereto, the following clause and entries relating thereto shall be substituted, namely :

(a) when presented to the High Court-

The grounds for challenges were -

(i) discrimination : as only the claimant is required to pay the ad-valorem Court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation whereas the Insurance Company and the owner file an appeal or fixed Court fee.

(ii) That prescription of ad-valorem Court fee without upper limit is arbitrary.

(iii) That the excessive levy in the form of Court fee at the rate of 10% of the enhanced amount claimed in appeal would amount to denial of access to justice.

(iv) that such an amendment cannot be introduced by the State Legislature with a view to cut short the litigation.

3. State of Madhya Pradesh justified their action stating that it is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary and the ad valorem Court fees is required to be paid only on enhanced amount claimed in appeal and in case an appeal directed against rejection of the entire claim by the Claims Tribunal, no ad valorem fees is required to be paid. It was further contended that if the claimant is unable to pay the Court fee on account of indigency, he can always seek the leave to file an appeal as an indigent person under Order 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As to the contention regarding fixation of upper limit of the Court fees it is urged that the same does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further contended that the legislature in order to curb the tendency for inflated claim in appeals arising from motor accident claim cases, it become imperative to amend the Court Fees Act so far it related to the additional claim of compensation in appeal.

4. The Division Bench while taking into consideration the statement of objects and reasons which ushered the amendment in the Stamp Act and the problem experienced to be alleviated. And, taking into consideration the increasing expenditure, the State had to incur expenditure towards maintenance of judicial establishment and the implementation of recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission. And, considering that as regard to laws relating to economic activities the Court shall feel more inclined to give judicial deference, as compared to other areas where fundamental rights are involved, negatived the claim by holding that the amendment is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary, nor does it create any impediment in access to justice.

5. The Division Bench held :

9. In the backdrop of well settled legal position, we may advert to the facts of the case. Prior to coming into force of Act No. 6 of 2008, an appeal could be filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation on fixed court fee. In other words, a claimant was exempted from payment of court fee on ad valorem basis. By the impugned amendment, the aforesaid exemption has been withdrawn and only those claimants, who have received compensation, have been made liable to pay ad valorem court fee like other litigants. Article 11 (1) (i) of the Act as amended by Act No. 6 of the 2008 has been assailed on the ground that the same is discriminatory. In order to su