Page 1

1

REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8660 OF 2014          [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 9042 OF 2013]

SARDAR TAJENDER SINGH GHAMBHIR AND  ANOTHER

... APPELLANT(s)

                     Versus SARDAR GURPREET SINGH & OTHERS ... RESPONDENT(s)

J U D G M E N T R.M.LODHA, CJI.

Leave granted. 2. The appellants are plaintiffs in the suit  for  declaration  and  injunction.   It  is  not  in  dispute that adequate court fee in that regard was  paid  by  the  plaintiffs.   Lateron,  reliefs  were  amended  and  prayers  for  compensation  and  utilization were also made. However, on the amended  valuation,  there  was  deficiency  in  payment  of  court-fee  but to make up such deficiency, no order  was passed by the trial court. 3. The  present  respondent  Nos.  1  &  2  (defendants  in  the  suit)  preferred  first  appeal  which was heard by the Additional District Judge,  Dehradun.  In  the  first  appeal,  an  objection  regarding  deficit  court-fee  was  raised  by  the

Page 2

2

defendants. The first appellate  court, however,  observed  that  while  granting  amendment  in  the  plaint, the trial court did not prescribe any time  limit in connection with the payment of court-fee  and even no objection was raised by the defendants  in that regard.  The aspect of deficit court-fee  came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs at the time  of preparation of decree only and, therefore, an  opportunity  deserved  to  be  granted  to  the  plaintiffs to make up the deficit court-fee in the  interest of justice. 4. Against this order of the first appellate  court,  respondent  Nos.  1  and  2  filed  a  writ  petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of  India.   The  High  Court  in  paragraph  7  of  the  impugned order held as under:

In the case in hand, after amendment in  the valuation clause of the plaint, it  was duty of the plaintiffs to make good  the  deficiency  in  the  court  fee.  Deficiency of the court fee could be made  good in the trial court only.  Perusal of  sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Court  Fees Act transpires that no plaint shall  be acted  upon, unless deficiencies in  the court fee are made good.  Court Fees  Act further provides that in no case, the  judgment  shall  be  delivered  unless  the

Page 3

3

deficiency in court fee  has been made  good.  Section 149 of C.P.C. though gives  powers   to  the  Court  to  allow  the  plaintiff to pay the deficit court fee  but  such  power  is  given  to  the  Court  before  the  disposal  of  suit.  Thus,  permission  for  payment  of  additional  court  fee  or  for  making  good  the  deficiency  in  Court  fee  could  only  be  granted during the pendency of suit. In  absence  of  payment  of  sufficient  court  fee the judgment could not be delivered.  Deficiency  of  court  fee  in  respect  of  plaint  cannot  be  made  good  during  the  appellate stage.  Such permission could  not  be  granted  by  the  appellate  court  under Section 151 C.P.C.. In case such  permission is permitted to the parties,  then it would not only be per-se illegal  but would also be a bad precedent since  all litigants would adopt this method of  paying  court  fee  only  after  obtaining  relief from the trial court, before the  Appellate  Court.  I have no hesitation  to say that decision making process of  Additional  District  Judge/FTC  II,  Dehradun in per-se vitiated and cannot be  appreciated.  He  has  exercised  his  jurisdiction  with  material  irregularity  and order passed by him deserves to be  set-aside.

5. It is this order which is challenged in  the  present  appeal,  by  special  leave.  The  High  Court  has  heavily  relied  upon  the  provisions  contained in sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 6 of  the Court-fees Act, 1870 (as applicable in U.P.)  (for short “1870 Act”) which provide that no plaint

Page 4

4

shall be acted upon unless deficiency in court-fee  is made good and further provision contained in  sub-section (3) of Section 6 that in no case the  judgment shall be delivered unless the deficiency  in court-fee has been made good.  The High Court  was also of the view that deficiency in court-fee  in respect of plaint cannot be made good during the  appellate stage and such permission could not be  granted by the appellate court under Section 149 or  Section 151 of  the Civil Procedure Code. 6. We  have  heard  Mr.  Shyam  Divan,  learned  senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jayant  Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the respondent  Nos. 1 and 2 at quite some length. 7. In our view, the impugned order can not be  sustained for more than one reason. In the first  place, the High Court has not properly construed  sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 6 of the 1870  Act.  For proper appreciation of sub-sections (2) &  (3) of Section 6, we quote the entire Section 6 of the 1870 Act which  reads as under:

6.  Fees on documents filed, etc., in  Mufassil Courts or in Public Offices -

Page 5

5

(1)  Except  in  the  courts  hereinbefore  mentioned,  no   document  of  any  kinds  specified as chargeable in the first or  second  Schedule  to  this  Act  annexed  shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in  any  Court  of  Justice,  or  shall  be  received  or  furnished  by  any  public  officer,  unless  in  respect  of  such  document  there  be  paid  a  fee  of  an  amount not less than that indicated by  either  of  the  said  Schedules  as  the  proper fee for such document: [Provided  that  where  such  document  relates  to  any  suit,  appeal  or  other  proceeding  under  [any  law  relating  to  land tenures or land revenue] the fee  payable shall be three-quarters of the  fee  indicated  in  either  of  the  said  Schedules  except  where  the  amount  or  value of the subject-matter of the suit,  appeal or proceeding to which it relates  exceeds Rs. 500: Provided  further that the fee payable  in respect of any such document as is  mentioned in the foregoing proviso shall  not be less than [one and one-forth] of  that  indicated  by  either  of  the  said  Schedules before the first day of May,  1936]. {Explanation – Where the amount of fee  prescribed in the Schedule contain any  fraction of a rupee below [twenty-five  naye paisa] or above [twenty-five naye  paise] but below [fifty naye paise] or  above  [fifty  naye  paise]  but  below  [seventy-five  naye  paise]  or  above  [seventy-five naye paise] but below one  rupee, the proper fee shall be an amount  rounded off to the next higher quarter  of a rupee as hereinafter appearing in  the said Schedules].

Page 6

6

(2) Notwithstanding  the  provisions  of  sub-section  (1),  a  Court  may  receive  plaint  or  memorandum  of  appeal  in  respect of which an insufficient fee has  been  paid,  but  no  such  plaint  or  memorandum of appeal shall be acted upon  unless the plaintiff or the appellant,  as  the  case  may  be,  makes  good  the  deficiency in court-fee within such time  as may  from time to time be fixed by  the court. [(3) If a question of deficiency in  court-fee in respect of any plaint or  memorandum  of  appeal  is  raised  by  an  officer  mentioned  in  Section  24-A  the  Court  shall,  before  proceeding  further  with  the  suit  or  appeal,  record  a  finding  whether  the  court-fee  paid  is  sufficient or not.  If the Court finds  that the court-fee paid is insufficient,  it shall call upon the plaintiff or the  appellant, as the case may be, to make  good the deficiency within such times as  it may fix, and in case of default shall  reject  the  plaint  or  memorandum  of  appeal: Provided  that  the  Court  may,  for  sufficient  reasons  to  be  recorded,  proceed with the suit or appeal if the  plaintiff or the appellant, as the case  may  be,  give  security,  to  the  satisfaction of the Court, for payment  of  the  deficiency  in  court-fee  within  such  further  times  as  the  Court  may  allow.   In  no  case,  however,  shall  judgment  be  delivered  unless  the  deficiency  in  court-fee  has  been  made  good, and if the deficiency is not made  good within such time as the Court may  from  time to time allow, the Court may  dismiss the suit or appeal. (4) Whenever  a  question  of  the  proper

Page 7

7

amount  of  court-fee  payable  is  raised  otherwise than under  sub-section (3),  the Court shall decide such  question  before proceeding with any other issue. (5) In case the deficiency in court-fee  is made good within the time allowed by  the Court, the date of the institution  of  the  suit  or  appeal  shall  be  deemed to be the date on which the suit  was filed or the appeal presented. (6) In all cases in which the report of  the officer referred to in sub-section  (3) is not accepted by the Court, a copy  of the findings of the Court together  with  a  copy  of  the  plaint  shall  forthwith be sent to the [Commissioner  of Stamps]].

8. While  referring  the  provisions  of  sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 6, we shall  refer  to  'plaint'  which  for  the  purposes  of  this  discussion may be read to include 'memorandum of  appeal'  as  well.   Sub-section  (2)  of  Section  6  provides that in plaint in which sufficient court- fee has not been paid, such plaint shall not be  acted upon unless the plaintiff  makes good the  deficiency in court-fee within such time as may  from time to time be fixed by the Court.  Sub- section  (3)  provides  that  if  a  question  of  deficiency in court-fee in respect of any plaint  is raised and the Court finds that the court-fee

Page 8

8

paid is insufficient, it shall ask the plaintiff  to make good the  deficiency within the time which  may be granted and in case of default, the plaint  shall  be  rejected.  The  main  provision  of  sub- section (3) mandates the Court to record a finding  whether  court-fee  paid  is  sufficient  on  the  question  being  raised  by  the  concerned  officer  under Section 24A.  It further provides that in  answer to that question if the Court finds that  court-fee paid is deficient, the Court may allow  plaintiff to make up that deficiency within time so  fixed  by  the  Court.  Then  there  is  a  proviso  appended  to  sub-section  (3)  which  provides  that  Court may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded,  proceed with the suit if security is given by the  plaintiff for payment of the deficiency in court- fee  within time that may be granted by the court.  It, however, requires the Court not to deliver the  judgment till such time deficiency is not recovered  and if the deficiency in court-fee is not made good  within such time as the Court may from time to time  allow, the Court may dismiss the suit or appeal.

Page 9

9

09. The  scheme  of  the  above  provisions  is  clear.  It casts duty on the Court to determine as  to whether or not court-fee paid on the plaint  is  deficient  and  if  the  court-fee  is  found  to  be  deficient,  then  give  an  opportunity  to  the  plaintiff to make up such deficiency within the  time that may be fixed by the Court. The important  thread that runs through sub-sections (2)  and (3)  of Section 6 of 1870 Act is that for payment of  court-fee, time must be granted by the court and if  despite the order of the court, deficient court-fee  is not paid, then consequence as provided therein  must follow. 10. Insofar as present case is concerned,  the  first appellate court in its order rightly observed  that  after  amendment  of  plaint  and  consequent  amendment in valuation, the trial court did not  pass  any  order  specifying  time  for  payment  of  deficient court-fee.  Obviously, in the absence of  such  specific  order,  sub-sections  (2)  &  (3)  of  Section 6 of 1870 Act would not come into operation  against the plaintiff.

Page 10

10

11.   The argument of the learned senior counsel  for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on construction of  sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 6 of 1870 Act  cannot be accepted.   The High Court was clearly in  error  in  invoking   the  above  provision  without  appreciating the fact that there was no order by  the trial court directing the plaintiffs to make  good  the  deficit  court-fee  within  a  particular  time. 12. The  High  Court  was  also  in  error  in  holding that deficiency in court-fee  in respect of  plaint cannot be made good during the appellate  stage.  In this regard, the High Court, overlooked  well  known  legal  position  that  appeal  is  continuation  of  suit  and  the  power  of   the  appellate court is co-extensive with that of the  trial court.  It failed to bear in mind that what  could be done by the trial court in the proceeding  of the suit, can always be done by the appellate  court in the interest of justice. 13. Secondly,  the  High  Court  failed  to  consider  clause  (ii)  of  Section  12  of  1870  Act

Page 11

11

which reads: (ii)  But  whenever  any  such  suit  comes  before  a  Court  of  appeal,  reference  or  revision, if such Court considers that the  said question has been wrongly decided to  the  detriment  of  the  revenue,  it  shall  require  the  party  by  whom  such  fee  has  been paid, to pay within such time as may  be fixed by it, so much additional fee as  would have been payable had the question  been rightly decided. If such additional  fee is not paid within the time fixed and  the defaulter is the appellant, the appeal  shall be dismissed, but if the defaulter  is the respondent  the Court shall inform  the  Collector  who  shall  recover  the  deficiency as if it were an arrear of land  revenue.

14. The above provision clearly empowers the  appellate  court  to  direct  a  party  to  make  up  deficit court-fee in the plaint at the appellate  stage.  The power exercised by the first appellate  court can be traced to clause (ii) of Section 12 of  1870 Act as well. 15. The  order  of  the  first  appellate  court  being  eminently just and proper,  in our view,  there  was  no  justification  for the High Court  to  invoke  its  power  under  Article  227 of the

Constitution of India and interfere with an order

Page 12

12

which effectively advanced the cause of justice. 16. For all these reasons, the impugned order  is unsustainable in the eye of  law and deserves to  set-aside and is set-aside.  17. Civil Appeal is allowed as above with no  order as to costs.           

   .......................CJI. (R.M. LODHA)

                 ........................J.          (KURIAN JOSEPH)

NEW DELHI;              ........................J. SEPTEMBER 12, 2014      (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)