Victoria V. The Attorney General

[FULL BENCH.]
1920     Present : Bertram C.J., De Sampayo J., and Schneider A.J.

VICTORIA v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

100-D. C. Kurunegala, 1,807.

Stamp duty-Ordinance No. 22 of 1909-Ordinance No. 32 of 1919- Must every copy of order nisi be, stamped ?-Translation of order nisi-Summons-Duplicate in Sinhalese and Tamil.

Every copy of an order nisi for service on respondents must be stamped, and must be in the English language.

The summons served upon defendants should be in the English language, and should not be merely a translation.

THE appellant applied for letters of administration to the estate of one Ekanayaka Mudiyanselage Ausadahamy of Uhuniya.

Under section 531 of the Civil Procedure Code the appellant applied to have copies of the order nisi served on the respondents through the Court on affixing class stamps to the original copy of the order nisi, and not to the copies or their translations intended for service or for publication.

The learned District Judge (M. S. Shresta, Esq.) made the following order:-

The point for decision is whether every copy of an order nisi should be stamped, and whether a translation of it should also be stamped.

The Stamp Ordinance, No. 22 of 1909, provided that the following should be stamped : " Copy of decree nisi, order nisi, or interlocutory order without reference to number, copy of decree absolute, or any other decree." Section 3 (1) of the amending Ordinance, No. 32 of 1919, substitutes for these words the following: " Every decree nisi, order nisi, interlocutory order and decree absolute, and all other decrees, and each and every copy thereof." Though the wording is not quite happy, I think there can be no doubt that it was intended . that every copy of an order nisi and every translation of it should be stamped. A translation is not the same thing as a copy, but it is obvious that it was not mentioned in the amending section referred to, because section 31, which requires the service of the order nisi, does not expressly mention that a translation of the order nisi, should be served on respondents whose language is not English. And, evidently, translations of the order nisi served on such respondents by analogy to summonses, translations of which are to be served under section 55 of the Civil Procedure Code on defendants whose language is not English. And it is to be noted that section 49 of the Code requires that with the plaint should be submitted as many copies as there are defendants, each, in the case of Sinhalese, Tamil, or Moor defendants, translated into

the language of the defendant for whom it is destined. A translation is, therefore, according to this section a copy translated into the language of the defendant.

So far as I can see, a translation of an order nisi is served on a Sinhalese, Tamil, or Moor in view of the provisions contained in sections 49 and 55 of the Code. If sections 49 and 55 do not apply to an order nisi, a copy in English of the order nisi has to be served on each respondent. If these sections do apply to an order nisi, a translation served on a respondent must be considered a copy for the reasons already given.

So far as copies of the order nisi obtained for advertising it under section 532 of the Code are concerned, they need not, in my opinion, be stamped in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in The Attorney-General v. Pedru,1[(1912) 15 N. L. R. 388.] that the duty of advertising an order nisi is cast on the Court.

My order therefore is that all copies of the order nisi, including translations, should be stamped, excepting such copies of translations as are furnished for the purpose of advertising the order nisi.

Croos-Dabrera, for appellant.-Section 356 of the Code says that the procedure hereinbefore provided for the service of summons should be followed in the case of service of orders of Court. Section 379 says that all orders in application

Click Here to Read the rest of this document