ORDER

1. Heard on I.A. No.10710 of 2022, an application for ignoring the default of 2.5% Court fee as pointed out by the Registry.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per the provision of the Court Fee (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2012, Court fee ought to be paid 2.5% of the enhanced amount, awarded in the Appeal and not on the amount which is claimed in appeal and Registry of this Court has wrongly raised objection on the proportionate Court fee and demanding 2.5% Court fee on the claimed amount in appeal which is against the spirit of law.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the enhanced amount cannot be determined earlier the judgment, but only after the judgment and only in cases where enhancement is made, then in that case only the Court fee has to be paid and that too on the enhanced amount and in case enhancement is not done, then no Court fee is required to be paid.

4. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the orders passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in MA No.1911 of 2010 (Hemraj and another v. Pradeep & another) decided on 6.11.2012 (Annexure A-2), MA No. 3612 of 2010 (Galiya and others v. Darbar and others) decided on 15.12.2011 reported in 2012 (2) ACCD 608 (MP) (Annexure A-3), MA No.2056 of 2010 (Smt. Nilofar Anjum and another v. Mohd. Ashif & another) decided on 14.12.2021 reported in 2012 (2) ACCD 1017 (MP) (Annexure A-4), MA No.3147 of 2010 (Badrilal v. Harikishan and others) decided on 16/12/2011 reported in 2012 (2) ACCD 1049 (MP) (Annexure A-5), MA No. 808 of 2011 (Smt. Leelabai and others v. Ramesh & others) decided on 14.12.2011 reported in 2012 (2) ACCD 1023 (MP) (Annexure A-6), MA No.11 of 2010 (Dilip v. Jakir Mohd. And others) decided 14.12.2011 reported in 2012 (2) ACCD 1022 (MP) (Annexure A-7), MA No.2015 of 2011 (Rakesh v. Sunil & others) decided on 16/12/2011 reported in 2012 (2) ACCD 1018 (MP) (Annexure A-8), MA No.4020 and 4261 of 2011 (Smt. Savita and others v. Shree Kumar Dhurve & others) decided on 20.12.2011 reported in 2012 (2) ACCD 589 (MP) (Annexure A-9), MA No.852 of 2015 (Preetam Lal Garg and others v. Vijay Kumar Gujrati & others) decided on 21.12.2016 (Annexure A-10), MA No.851 of 2015 (Arun Kumar Dubey v. Vijay Kumar Gujrati & others) decided on 21.12.2016 (Annexure A-11), MA No.88 of 2018 (Smt. Meera Sahu v. Deepchand) decided on 8.3.2018, MA No.907 of 2020 (Smt. Aanny @ and others v. the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. And others) decided on 17.02.2020 and Basid v. K.C. Sanu 2015 ACJ 1856 (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) (Annexure A-12).

5. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the citations relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Citations as mentioned in the above para No.4 which were marked as Annexures A-2 to A-11 and orders passed in MA No.88 of 2018 and MA No.907 of 2020, this Court did not lay down any principles in above cases that appellants are required to pay Court fees only on that amount which was enhanced by the Court after adjudication of the appeal, but those were just isolated events and no such law has been laid down in those cases.

6. Division benches and co-ordinate benches of this Court in various cases passed the orders where this question has been comprehensively dealt with, of which, some are reproduced as below :--

(I) MA No.781 of 2015 Ram Ratan Singh & others v. Janakchand Rana & another vide order dated, 6.9.2017 passed the following :--

“Heard on I.A.No.8831/2017, which is an application for ignoring the objection raised by the registry of this Court regarding payment of deficit Court fees. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of aforesaid application are that the applicants have filed this Miscellaneous Appeal against the award dated 18.10.2014 passed by IInd Additional MACT, Katni in Claim Case No.268/2013 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the applicants.